# So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?



## bodecea

Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


----------



## depotoo

Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy


----------



## theDoctorisIn

They were brought to my attention after the Isla Vista killings.

They're one of the subgroups that make up the worst part of the internet.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

depotoo said:


> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy



Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?








It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.


----------



## Dragonlady

I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem. 

I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid. 

They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs. 

At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it. 

A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.


----------



## westwall

Dragonlady said:


> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.







Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.


----------



## Penelope

SassyIrishLass said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
Click to expand...


More like  Alfa males.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like  Alfa males.
Click to expand...


You've obliviously never met an Alpha male....but that's no surprise


----------



## Dragonlady

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...


It was months ago. The thread had drifted way off the original topic, so no idea. I think the title had something to do with feminism.


----------



## JoeMoma

Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.


----------



## westwall

Dragonlady said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was months ago. The thread had drifted way off the original topic, so no idea. I think the title had something to do with feminism.
Click to expand...





So, nothing more than hearsay on your part.  Like I said, I review thousands of threads and have never come across anything even remotely as you describe.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this picture, where at one time men were men and would act like men.  Today in the me first attitude, fuck everyone...


----------



## miketx

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...

All we need to know is that she said it. So it must be true. Libs never make anything up.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

SassyIrishLass said:


> You've obliviously never met an Alpha male....but that's no surprise




I'm sure it was a typo.

Considering the source,  she must have meant Alpo males.


----------



## Sunni Man

We had a few of them when I was in high school.

They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.

Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Sunni Man said:


> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....



Stuffing them in lockers was great sport at my HS


----------



## DigitalDrifter

This pathetic "man" and others like him, wants to blame society for his own failed attemps at having a normal sex life. In his mind, his problem is so severe, that he believes he has the right to strike out and kill others.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Sunni Man said:


> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....


When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.


----------



## JoeMoma

SassyIrishLass said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stuffing them in lockers was great sport at my HS
Click to expand...

I still have nightmares.


----------



## Pop23

Dragonlady said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was months ago. The thread had drifted way off the original topic, so no idea. I think the title had something to do with feminism.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think I saw the same. I think it was by the dude that's always posting about his woman problems. I normally ignore his posts. Pretty lame.


----------



## Sunni Man

Funny but true story.   ....   

My teacher tossed me out of class because I wasn't wearing any socks.

Walking down the hall I spotted a geek in an isolated corridor, tacked him to the floor, took his shoes off and stole his socks. Then went back to my class wearing the socks and sat down at my desk. Teacher just looked at my feet and didn't say anything.

That's just how it was back in the day.  .....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Sunni Man said:


> Funny but true story.   ....
> 
> My teacher tossed me out of class because I wasn't wearing any socks.
> 
> Walking down the hall I spotted a geek in an isolated corridor, tacked him to the floor, took his shoes off and stole his socks. Then went back to my class wearing the socks and sat down at my desk. Teacher just looked at my feet and didn't say anything.
> 
> That's just how it was back in the day.  .....



Karma would have been if he'd had foot fungus


----------



## Sunni Man

SassyIrishLass said:


> Karma would have been if he'd had foot fungus


Nowadays if a school kid pulled a stunt like that. He would be arrested and wind up in juvenile court with a record.   ....


----------



## Pop23

Sunni Man said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma would have been if he'd had foot fungus
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays if a school kid pulled a stunt like that. He would be arrested and wind up in juvenile court.   ....
Click to expand...


In jail, with foot fungus! It don't get worse than that!


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



From KnowYourMeme

Involuntary Celibacy / Incel | Know Your Meme

Much like the whole slenderman thing, what you have is an internet joke that gets taken waaay to seriously by people with obvious underlying mental problems.


----------



## depotoo

I remember seeing it, too.  Wish I could remember who it was that initiated it, but can’t.  Don’t think it was a frequent poster, though, not sure.





westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

I remember the post as well. 





miketx said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All we need to know is that she said it. So it must be true. Libs never make anything up.
Click to expand...


----------



## LoneLaugher

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...


There are people here who hate women that much. You don't know that?


----------



## petro

Great.

Another grievance group.

Just what we don't need.


----------



## bodecea

Glad to be allowed back in my own thread.    I've been trying to help Dragonlady find the thread she was referring to.....type in "feminist" on searches and you find MORE THAN ONE thread with misogynists ranting about women.


----------



## Dragonlady

JoeMoma said:


> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.



Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.


----------



## bodecea

Dragonlady said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
Click to expand...

How closely does this tie in with patriarchal religions such as Islam and Christianity and Judaism?


----------



## Dragonlady

andaronjim said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
Click to expand...


The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.


----------



## bodecea

Dragonlady said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
Click to expand...

I've heard that a lot of these INCEL types have this "John Wayne" image of themselves and can't handle real discipline or even exercise.


----------



## JoeMoma

Dragonlady said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
Click to expand...

Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.


----------



## Pop23

bodecea said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How closely does this tie in with patriarchal religions such as Islam and Christianity and Judaism?
Click to expand...


Stupid question.

The pope don't care what rental company a person uses.

I think that's in Exodus. If not, it should be.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
Click to expand...


being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"


----------



## Dragonlady

JoeMoma said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
Click to expand...


In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women. 

One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour. 

Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.


----------



## Dragonlady

martybegan said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
Click to expand...


Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dragonlady said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
Click to expand...




> a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid


 And I am sure it would come out of my taxes?  My way is a better way to get pajama boys laid...


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.
Click to expand...


Maybe what we need is programs for boys to work on their self-esteem like we have in gobs and gobs for young girls. 

Of course, for this guy it's too late and he should hang, except Canada doesn't execute killers like this so he gets 3 hots and a cot for life.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
Click to expand...


Some of that hero worship may be genuine but most of it is just for shock value by /b/-tards trying to get a rise out of normals.


----------



## bodecea

martybegan said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what we need is programs for boys to work on their self-esteem like we have in gobs and gobs for young girls.
> 
> Of course, for this guy it's too late and he should hang, except Canada doesn't execute killers like this so he gets 3 hots and a cot for life.
Click to expand...


And all the boy action he wants...or maybe doesn't want.


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what we need is programs for boys to work on their self-esteem like we have in gobs and gobs for young girls.
> 
> Of course, for this guy it's too late and he should hang, except Canada doesn't execute killers like this so he gets 3 hots and a cot for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the boy action he wants...or maybe doesn't want.
Click to expand...


Still better just to execute his ass after a fair trial if he's found competent. 

Guards looking the other way to let some scumbag get raped isn't exactly a well organized penal system.


----------



## bodecea

martybegan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what we need is programs for boys to work on their self-esteem like we have in gobs and gobs for young girls.
> 
> Of course, for this guy it's too late and he should hang, except Canada doesn't execute killers like this so he gets 3 hots and a cot for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the boy action he wants...or maybe doesn't want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still better just to execute his ass after a fair trial if he's found competent.
> 
> Guards looking the other way to let some scumbag get raped isn't exactly a well organized penal system.
Click to expand...

Well, they looked away "for" Jeffrey Dahmer.


----------



## martybegan

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> being in for 14 days of basic training and washing out doesn't make you "ex-military"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in any real sense but it does show that the army couldn’t “make a man out of him”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe what we need is programs for boys to work on their self-esteem like we have in gobs and gobs for young girls.
> 
> Of course, for this guy it's too late and he should hang, except Canada doesn't execute killers like this so he gets 3 hots and a cot for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the boy action he wants...or maybe doesn't want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still better just to execute his ass after a fair trial if he's found competent.
> 
> Guards looking the other way to let some scumbag get raped isn't exactly a well organized penal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, they looked away "for" Jeffrey Dahmer.
Click to expand...


Still should have just had him executed. 

Extra-judicial killings make the system not be the system.


----------



## Dragonlady

andaronjim said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I am sure it would come out of my taxes?  My way is a better way to get pajama boys laid...
Click to expand...


It’s amazing how often you talk about killing people you don’t like, while claiming what a decent moral man you are.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dragonlady said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I am sure it would come out of my taxes?  My way is a better way to get pajama boys laid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how often you talk about killing people you don’t like, while claiming what a decent moral man you are.
Click to expand...

If the government cannot prevent the perverts from killing other people, why is it bad to prevent the shit from killing 14 innocent children?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dragonlady said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I am sure it would come out of my taxes?  My way is a better way to get pajama boys laid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how often you talk about killing people you don’t like, while claiming what a decent moral man you are.
Click to expand...

Ex military....I prefer to protect innocent people from those who wish to do others harm.  Not like you who has to find a safe spot and pray that the killer doesn't find you.


----------



## Lysistrata

There are some things that many heterosexual men seem not to understand:

If you dislike, disdain, vilify, mock, declare your superiority to, and annoy, such as so many men seem to do to women, you will not be liked. This behavior certainly will not inspire women to grab your hand and haul you off to the bedroom.
Like men, and I'm sad to say this but it is true for all humans, there is a physical factor at play with women, as well. It's not fair. It never was. It's cruel to people on whom Mother Nature did not smile. But it is real. The physical factor affects both sexes. Neither sex queues up for dates with people who lack what society considers "attractive." Conversely, people notice physically attractive people without having a clue as to what these people are like. I guess it's just down to some visual thing or, if you're in the same room, pheromones. I remember seeing a young male actor on TV, shirtless, acting a role so that he was not exhibiting his actual personality. He made me drop my fork. Wow. Just wow. We don't know how this operates. I can't explain it and nobody else can, either.

Don't be fooled by some guy declaring that somebody is a "man's man." A "man's man" is attractive to men. So this must be great for gay guys. Most women aren't turned on by some guy in a camouflage outfit covered in tattoos, guns, and ammunition bandoleers, spewing filthy language, trash-talking females, and spraying bullets. The story of Rudolph Valentino (1895 - 1926), "The Sheik," is instructional. Newspapers mocked him for wearing a wristwatch. This was a "bracelet" and "real men" had pocket watches. When Valentino died suddenly in New York at the age of 31, there was mass hysteria on the streets of NYC, packed with weeping women. He was a "Ladies Man," NOT a "man's man."
People just have to sit down and figure out whether they are heterosexual or have some other orientation. If you're  heterosexual, work to appeal to your audience. Putting your efforts into alienating it is not a good idea.


----------



## Dragonlady

andaronjim said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this needs to be a question on gun license applications and vehicle rental contracts for single men.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe prostitution needs to be legalized across the nation in the name of national security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a discussion yesterday, a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid on a regular basis so as to keep the rest of us safer. But that would mean getting more women into prostitution to service them and he didn’t think that was fair to the women.
> 
> One of the worst things about the internet is that no matter how ridiculous your grievances are, or how twisted your beliefs, there is a group of people on the internet who share your beliefs/perversions and this normalizes the behaviour.
> 
> Yesterday the Toronto van driver was being hailed as a hero on the sites where incels congregate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a male friend of mine suggested that what might be needed is a government fund to get these guys laid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I am sure it would come out of my taxes?  My way is a better way to get pajama boys laid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how often you talk about killing people you don’t like, while claiming what a decent moral man you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the government cannot prevent the perverts from killing other people, why is it bad to prevent the shit from killing 14 innocent children?
Click to expand...


Nice try asshat. In your posts in this forum, you’ve threatened to kill women who back talked you, trespassers, anyone who tried to take your guns, and said that you support an authoritarian government, and you’d kill liberals as well.

You should get together with Marion Morrison. He wants to hang Obsma for treason, but he’s fine with Trump selling out to Putin.


----------



## Witchit

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



I found a good article on it this morning, I already knew about them though through the "red pill" group on Reddit.


----------



## Dragonlady

Lysistrata said:


> There are some things that many heterosexual men seem not to understand:
> 
> If you dislike, disdain, vilify, mock, declare your superiority to, and annoy, such as so many men seem to do to women, you will not be liked. This behavior certainly will not inspire women to grab your hand and haul you off to the bedroom.
> Like men, and I'm sad to say this but it is true for all humans, there is a physical factor at play with women, as well. It's not fair. It never was. It's cruel to people on whom Mother Nature did not smile. But it is real. The physical factor affects both sexes. Neither sex queues up for dates with people who lack what society considers "attractive." Conversely, people notice physically attractive people without having a clue as to what these people are like. I guess it's just down to some visual thing or, if you're in the same room, pheromones. I remember seeing a young male actor on TV, shirtless, acting a role so that he was not exhibiting his actual personality. He made me drop my fork. Wow. Just wow. We don't know how this operates. I can't explain it and nobody else can, either.
> 
> Don't be fooled by some guy declaring that somebody is a "man's man." A "man's man" is attractive to men. So this must be great for gay guys. Most women aren't turned on by some guy in a camouflage outfit covered in tattoos, guns, and ammunition bandoleers, spewing filthy language, trash-talking females, and spraying bullets. The story of Rudolph Valentino (1895 - 1926), "The Sheik," is instructional. Newspapers mocked him for wearing a wristwatch. This was a "bracelet" and "real men" had pocket watches. When Valentino died suddenly in New York at the age of 31, there was mass hysteria on the streets of NYC, packed with weeping women. He was a "Ladies Man," NOT a "man's man."
> People just have to sit down and figure out whether they are heterosexual or have some other orientation. If you're  heterosexual, work to appeal to your audience. Putting your efforts into alienating it is not a good idea.



Brilliant post. Well written and full of good advice. I would add just one thing. 

If you show no interest in a woman, other than a sexual interest, she’s not going to have any interest in you. Sexual attraction, for most women, starts between the ears not between the legs. Shared interests, good manners, respect and a great sense of humour, are very sexy. 

My daughter’s husband said it best:  Sex is so much better when you care about the person you’re fucking. There’s just no comparison.


----------



## Lysistrata

Dragonlady said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things that many heterosexual men seem not to understand:
> 
> If you dislike, disdain, vilify, mock, declare your superiority to, and annoy, such as so many men seem to do to women, you will not be liked. This behavior certainly will not inspire women to grab your hand and haul you off to the bedroom.
> Like men, and I'm sad to say this but it is true for all humans, there is a physical factor at play with women, as well. It's not fair. It never was. It's cruel to people on whom Mother Nature did not smile. But it is real. The physical factor affects both sexes. Neither sex queues up for dates with people who lack what society considers "attractive." Conversely, people notice physically attractive people without having a clue as to what these people are like. I guess it's just down to some visual thing or, if you're in the same room, pheromones. I remember seeing a young male actor on TV, shirtless, acting a role so that he was not exhibiting his actual personality. He made me drop my fork. Wow. Just wow. We don't know how this operates. I can't explain it and nobody else can, either.
> 
> Don't be fooled by some guy declaring that somebody is a "man's man." A "man's man" is attractive to men. So this must be great for gay guys. Most women aren't turned on by some guy in a camouflage outfit covered in tattoos, guns, and ammunition bandoleers, spewing filthy language, trash-talking females, and spraying bullets. The story of Rudolph Valentino (1895 - 1926), "The Sheik," is instructional. Newspapers mocked him for wearing a wristwatch. This was a "bracelet" and "real men" had pocket watches. When Valentino died suddenly in New York at the age of 31, there was mass hysteria on the streets of NYC, packed with weeping women. He was a "Ladies Man," NOT a "man's man."
> People just have to sit down and figure out whether they are heterosexual or have some other orientation. If you're  heterosexual, work to appeal to your audience. Putting your efforts into alienating it is not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant post. Well written and full of good advice. I would add just one thing.
> 
> If you show no interest in a woman, other than a sexual interest, she’s not going to have any interest in you. Sexual attraction, for most women, starts between the ears not between the legs. Shared interests, good manners, respect and a great sense of humour, are very sexy.
> 
> My daughter’s husband said it best:  Sex is so much better when you care about the person you’re fucking. There’s just no comparison.
Click to expand...


And thank you! You are so right! Sexual attraction, at least that of any value, starts between the ears. This is why analyzing such attraction is like, to borrow a phrase, trying to nail jello to a wall. I've said many times that I like to judge a man based on whether I'd want to have breakfast with him in the morning, not on how pretty he is or how good in bed. Anyone can be good for an hour's roll in the hay. I think that this is why I've only felt attracted to guys (talking celebrities here, of course) who were/are writers, songwriters, musicians, actors. They were people who did not come across as arrogant and egocentric and they offered something that made me want to sit down with them, but a bottle of something between us, and have long conversations, ask them what inspired them and what they see in the world that they draw from, and how they came up with what they came up with.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I've spent a lot of my life around D.C., otherwise known as "Hollywood for the Ugly." So many of the guys around here, particularly the politicians, are boring, insincere suits who don't know when to STFU. This current crop is extremely bad, always prattling about politics, religion, and other nonsense. They are Death By Boredom. It's a slow and agonizing death. I hope that they don't do this at home. I had to be in the courtroom when SCOTUS heard oral argument in _Falwell v. Flynt _way back when. It truly was _Asshole v. Asshole. _When not taking notes (my job), I spent the time laughing at Scalia's jokes, looking at Falwell and Flynt, and cursing the fact that I had left my barf bag at home.

I have one final thought for the gentlemen, until I think of another:

If you have a sense of humor, find it. If you don't have a sense of humor, go out and get one.

Thank you, Dragonlady. You are a Keeper.


----------



## Political Junky

andaronjim said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me of this picture, where at one time men were men and would act like men.  Today in the me first attitude, fuck everyone...
> 
> View attachment 189911
Click to expand...

Yes, a man just ain't a man without a rifle.


----------



## Dragonlady

We are in agreement. I used to say it’s easy to find someone to go to bed with. I want someone I can wake up with.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Pop23 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma would have been if he'd had foot fungus
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays if a school kid pulled a stunt like that. He would be arrested and wind up in juvenile court.   ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In jail, with foot fungus! It don't get worse than that!
Click to expand...

Until big bubba walks up like Mr T.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dragonlady said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy in Toronto was ex-military, briefly. He washed out and voluntarily left. Our Secretary of Defence says it was a “mutual decision”.
Click to expand...

washed out doesn't mean voluntarily left, it means you were kicked the fuck out...Damn bitch, you need a dictionary.


----------



## WinterBorn

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...


While perhaps not quite to the level described by Dragonlady, Daniel Palos is close.  He has been whining about wanting "his turn" on women.  He has been offering "full body massage with a happy ending" for as long as I remember him being here.  And when asked about it, he wants a "friend" for sex without him having to be her friend.  He is every bit what the dangerous ones are, without the balls to act.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

WinterBorn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While perhaps not quite to the level described by Dragonlady, Daniel Palos is close.  He has been whining about wanting "his turn" on women.  He has been offering "full body massage with a happy ending" for as long as I remember him being here.  And when asked about it, he wants a "friend" for sex without him having to be her friend.  He is every bit what the dangerous ones are, without the balls to act.
Click to expand...




> is every bit what the dangerous ones are, without the balls to act.


 You do know the difference between "Acting out" and "without balls to act"?


----------



## WinterBorn

Sunni Man said:


> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....



At a certain point I stopped spanking my sons.   But I made sure that they knew, if I found out they were one of those assholes who beat up nerds or stuffed kids in lockers, I would kick their ass like they deserved.

The idea that this is just a "Boys will be boys" situation is bullshit.


----------



## blastoff

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


Good news.  Leaves more p-word for us real men.


----------



## WinterBorn

andaronjim said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While perhaps not quite to the level described by Dragonlady, Daniel Palos is close.  He has been whining about wanting "his turn" on women.  He has been offering "full body massage with a happy ending" for as long as I remember him being here.  And when asked about it, he wants a "friend" for sex without him having to be her friend.  He is every bit what the dangerous ones are, without the balls to act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is every bit what the dangerous ones are, without the balls to act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do know the difference between "Acting out" and "without balls to act"?
Click to expand...


Yeah, "without the balls to act" means you want to do something, but are scared.  In this case, its a good thing.


----------



## SweetSue92

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc. 

And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.


----------



## Lysistrata

SweetSue92 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...


The "Entitlement Era" has lasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.This has manifested itself in today's white-supremacist movements, the Islamist (not Muslim) movement, and also in religions that have pushed patriarchy (OMG, that dreaded word!) against the female half of the population for thousands of years across the globe. From your posts, since I do not know you except on the internet, I find that you are a supporter of entitlement thinking, particularly when the issue is the relationships between heterosexuals.


----------



## Superbadbrutha

andaronjim said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a few of them when I was in high school.
> 
> They were known as nerds, losers, geeks, weirdos, poindexters, etc.
> 
> Basically, the guys who frequently got beat up and their lunch money taken from them.   ....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in high school, I was one of those nerds...I grew out of it, and joined the military...Military used to make boys into men.. Today after 8 years of Obama, the Military make boys into girls...Thank you Obama, you faggot.
Click to expand...


Tell me the policies he put in place that did that.  I could be wrong, but could you tell me how many companies, regiments, battalions, brigades or divisions Pres Obama trained.  I wonder how many soldiers would agree with your stupid ass assessment.


----------



## Dragonlady

SweetSue92 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...


It’s not just that they are involuntarily celibate, it’s also that they really don’t like women or want any kind of relationship with them outside of sexual services. 

When I was younger, we would occasionally encounter men who hated women but being avowed heterosexuals, they had to have some interaction with women to get laid. 

These men don’t even want to date, but they also don’t want to hire hookers because other guys don’t have to “pay for it”.  For those just wanting sex with no “entanglements”, paying for sex would solve all their problems.   

So really incels do have options to get solve their celibacy but they reject the idea of hookers, or other options that don’t involve women voluntarily servicing them for mutual satisfaction and nothing more


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Celibacy isn't their problem.  Cruelty is their problem.   Perhaps they had no proper role models.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s not just that they are involuntarily celibate, it’s also that they really don’t like women or want any kind of relationship with them outside of sexual services.
> 
> When I was younger, we would occasionally encounter men who hated women but being avowed heterosexuals, they had to have some interaction with women to get laid.
> 
> These men don’t even want to date, but they also don’t want to hire hookers because other guys don’t have to “pay for it”.  For those just wanting sex with no “entanglements”, paying for sex would solve all their problems.
> 
> So really incels do have options to get solve their celibacy but they reject the idea of hookers, or other options that don’t involve women voluntarily servicing them for mutual satisfaction and nothing more
Click to expand...


Like most internet phenomenon, especially anything involving a "chan", one has to separate the trolling from the reality. 

There is a construct of the whole incel thing, and then there is the actual people involved in the whole incel thing, and it is difficult to tell what is the construct, and what is the reality.

The very nature of the internet and Chan culture is based on trolling, so one cannot really tell what is serious, and what is just meant to get the lulz. 

And I am currently violating rules 1 and 2 right now.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.
Click to expand...

The right wing is worse.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.


...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."  

Who has the really really serious relationship twat?  

Who harasses women for really really serious?  

Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?


----------



## SweetSue92

Lysistrata said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Entitlement Era" has lasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.This has manifested itself in today's white-supremacist movements, the Islamist (not Muslim) movement, and also in religions that have pushed patriarchy (OMG, that dreaded word!) against the female half of the population for thousands of years across the globe. From your posts, since I do not know you except on the internet, I find that you are a supporter of entitlement thinking, particularly when the issue is the relationships between heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. Right or wrong in the examples above the people feel they have something to recommend them: wealth, gender, superior belief systems--something. In the Entitlement Era you don't have to bring anything. You have been born and are breathing. That's enough; you're entitled.


----------



## Death Angel

SassyIrishLass said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
Click to expand...

No "probably" about it.


----------



## Andylusion

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.

So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.

Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE

More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.

I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.

So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?

How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock

And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates? 

Could be true. Just seems unlikely.

I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).

Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.

How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?

And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?

'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film

So that's my opinion on it.

We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.

We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.

What do you think?


----------



## danielpalos

Equal work for equal pay!

We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!


----------



## danielpalos

SweetSue92 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Entitlement Era" has lasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.This has manifested itself in today's white-supremacist movements, the Islamist (not Muslim) movement, and also in religions that have pushed patriarchy (OMG, that dreaded word!) against the female half of the population for thousands of years across the globe. From your posts, since I do not know you except on the internet, I find that you are a supporter of entitlement thinking, particularly when the issue is the relationships between heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Right or wrong in the examples above the people feel they have something to recommend them: wealth, gender, superior belief systems--something. INCEL. In the Entitlement Era you don't have to bring anything. You have been born and are breathing. That's enough; you're entitled.
Click to expand...

...we should just have to look good.  Equal work for equal pay!


----------



## SweetSue92

Dragonlady said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s not just that they are involuntarily celibate, it’s also that they really don’t like women or want any kind of relationship with them outside of sexual services.
> 
> When I was younger, we would occasionally encounter men who hated women but being avowed heterosexuals, they had to have some interaction with women to get laid.
> 
> These men don’t even want to date, but they also don’t want to hire hookers because other guys don’t have to “pay for it”.  For those just wanting sex with no “entanglements”, paying for sex would solve all their problems.
> 
> So really incels do have options to get solve their celibacy but they reject the idea of hookers, or other options that don’t involve women voluntarily servicing them for mutual satisfaction and nothing more
Click to expand...


_It’s not just that they are involuntarily celibate, it’s also that they really don’t like women or want any kind of relationship with them outside of sexual services._

You needed a semicolon between independent clauses there that were related. "...celibate; it's also that..."

_When I was younger, we would occasionally encounter men who hated women but being avowed heterosexuals, they had to have some interaction with women to get laid._

Commas are awkward and make for run-on sentence. 

_These men don’t even want to date, but they also don’t want to hire hookers because other guys don’t have to “pay for it”.  For those just wanting sex with no “entanglements”, paying for sex would solve all their problems.  _

Again two separate thoughts that need separate sentences or a better clause. "These men don't even want to date. They also don't want to hire hookers because other guys don't have to "Pay for it". For those...

_So really incels do have options to get solve their celibacy but they reject the idea of hookers, or other options that don’t involve women voluntarily servicing them for mutual satisfaction and nothing more_

Needs an "and" and not on "or". They don't reject hookers OR other options; they reject hookers AND other options.

****

This is what happens when you turn informal message board writing into a grammar and writing crapfest, Dragon Lady. That's not what message boards are for (Oh look, a dangling participle!) And I did all of this free form; didn't look it up. I'm sure I'm rusty.


_
_


----------



## danielpalos

Why do women make it seem like really really serious is worth less than All of the other ones?


----------



## SweetSue92

Andylusion said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
Click to expand...


Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work. 

Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.


----------



## SweetSue92

danielpalos said:


> Why do women make it seem like really really serious is worth less than All of the other ones?



I have no idea what you're talking about


----------



## danielpalos

Why does it seem like women are less willing to be, girls and friends, at the same time?


----------



## bodecea

More INCEL killings since I started this thread last year...........


----------



## SweetSue92

danielpalos said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Entitlement Era" has lasted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.This has manifested itself in today's white-supremacist movements, the Islamist (not Muslim) movement, and also in religions that have pushed patriarchy (OMG, that dreaded word!) against the female half of the population for thousands of years across the globe. From your posts, since I do not know you except on the internet, I find that you are a supporter of entitlement thinking, particularly when the issue is the relationships between heterosexuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Right or wrong in the examples above the people feel they have something to recommend them: wealth, gender, superior belief systems--something. INCEL. In the Entitlement Era you don't have to bring anything. You have been born and are breathing. That's enough; you're entitled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...we should just have to look good.  Equal work for equal pay!
Click to expand...


And just think I've been working so hard for all these years and all I had to do was show up and look purty!! 

Wow if only I had known


----------



## JoeMoma

danielpalos said:


> Why does it seem like women are less willing to be, girls and friends, at the same time?


The very last place you ever want to be with a lady that you want to have a romantic relationship with is the friend zone.


----------



## danielpalos

Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.


----------



## danielpalos

JoeMoma said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it seem like women are less willing to be, girls and friends, at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> The very last place you ever want to be with a lady that you want to have a romantic relationship with is the friend zone.
Click to expand...

equal work for equal pay.  i should have girl friends who share the same interests.


----------



## Jitss617

Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha


the right wing is worse.  what is wrong with a little, diversity.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is worse.  what is wrong with a little, diversity.
Click to expand...

Right wing in every poll has been found to be far more attractive then democrats lol


----------



## danielpalos

SweetSue92 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do women make it seem like really really serious is worth less than All of the other ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about
Click to expand...

lol.  Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality. 

Who missed Carrie Fisher's character in the Blues Brothers.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is worse.  what is wrong with a little, diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing in every poll has been found to be far more attractive then democrats lol
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!

how about some, equality, chics.


----------



## SweetSue92

danielpalos said:


> ...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> 
> how about some, equality, chics.



When your political party is failing SO BAD you have to offer sexual favors for votes....


----------



## danielpalos

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.  here, you are just being unequal about equality.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is worse.  what is wrong with a little, diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing in every poll has been found to be far more attractive then democrats lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

Alpha males


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha


I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is worse.  what is wrong with a little, diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing in every poll has been found to be far more attractive then democrats lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alpha males
Click to expand...

all they know how to do is lose arguments.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
Click to expand...

Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces


----------



## danielpalos

Polygamy!  So every woman can marry a nice guy.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



They've been around for a while. The entire 'movement' is cancer.


----------



## Andylusion

SweetSue92 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
Click to expand...


I met a girl years ago, and we were talking at lunch break, and she mentioned that she was saving money in a separate bank account, at a different bank than the one she uses.

Everyone around the lunch table thought that was odd.  "I'm saving in a separate account, so when I'm divorced I'll have money my husband doesn't know about".  Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet, or even dating.  So she's planning for her divorce before even meeting the guy she'll end up divorcing.

We have a huge cultural / moral break down.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
Click to expand...

"Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a girl years ago, and we were talking at lunch break, and she mentioned that she was saving money in a separate bank account, at a different bank than the one she uses.
> 
> Everyone around the lunch table thought that was odd.  "I'm saving in a separate account, so when I'm divorced I'll have money my husband doesn't know about".  Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet, or even dating.  So she's planning for her divorce before even meeting the guy she'll end up divorcing.
> 
> We have a huge cultural / moral break down.
Click to expand...

yes, boys should know how to be friends with girls.


----------



## bodecea

Andylusion said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a girl years ago, and we were talking at lunch break, and she mentioned that she was saving money in a separate bank account, at a different bank than the one she uses.
> 
> Everyone around the lunch table thought that was odd.  "I'm saving in a separate account, so when I'm divorced I'll have money my husband doesn't know about".  Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet, or even dating.  So she's planning for her divorce before even meeting the guy she'll end up divorcing.
> 
> We have a huge cultural / moral break down.
Click to expand...

That's a big thing in Japan now with women.....planning that exit strategy even before marriage.


----------



## impuretrash

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've been around for a while. The entire 'movement' is cancer.
Click to expand...


it's not a "movement". A movement is something you join. The "in" part of incel means involuntary. 20-something men frustrated that they can't find a girlfriend is nothing new. It's only thanks to the anonymous internet that they can find other guys like them and talk about it without fear of mockery. Half of them are probably not even 20 yet. They'll grow out of it.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
   When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.


----------



## impuretrash

iamwhatiseem said:


> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.



The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?


----------



## danielpalos

iamwhatiseem said:


> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.


...in my case, it is mostly about economics and Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

impuretrash said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
Click to expand...

...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

impuretrash said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've been around for a while. The entire 'movement' is cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's not a "movement". A movement is something you join. The "in" part of incel means involuntary. 20-something men frustrated that they can't find a girlfriend is nothing new. It's only thanks to the anonymous internet that they can find other guys like them and talk about it without fear of mockery. Half of them are probably not even 20 yet. They'll grow out of it.
Click to expand...


Okay. Nothing you said contradicts anything I said.


----------



## impuretrash

danielpalos said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
Click to expand...


Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

impuretrash said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
Click to expand...


 No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
  And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
  Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?


----------



## danielpalos

impuretrash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
Click to expand...

...in my case, it is more about equality.


----------



## danielpalos

Better prevention and a war on communicable diseases not a war on drugs!


----------



## impuretrash

iamwhatiseem said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
Click to expand...


The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.


----------



## danielpalos

impuretrash said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
Click to expand...

...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."


----------



## iamwhatiseem

impuretrash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
Click to expand...


Nevermind daniel... he loves to post random, nonsensical musings to get people to respond... only to find themselves running in place.


----------



## danielpalos

iamwhatiseem said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevermind daniel... he loves to post random, nonsensical musings to get people to respond... only to find themselves running in place.
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacy, just for fun and practice.


----------



## Correll

IMO, this piece is relevant, and informative.


----------



## Papageorgio

Andylusion said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a girl years ago, and we were talking at lunch break, and she mentioned that she was saving money in a separate bank account, at a different bank than the one she uses.
> 
> Everyone around the lunch table thought that was odd.  "I'm saving in a separate account, so when I'm divorced I'll have money my husband doesn't know about".  Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet, or even dating.  So she's planning for her divorce before even meeting the guy she'll end up divorcing.
> 
> We have a huge cultural / moral break down.
Click to expand...


If that is the attitude going in, there is no chance for success. Sad what we as a society are coming to. My wife and I married with the attitude that divorce wasn't an option. Problems don't fix themselves, only we can fix our problems.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
Click to expand...

Ummm ok 
lol 
NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down

Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
Click to expand...

some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SweetSue92 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

Actually not.

It's a manifestation of reactionary conservatism hostile towards women and "feminists."


----------



## danielpalos

this dilemma primarily exists due to capitalism and the capital inequality of our less efficient economy.

We could be increasing the efficiency of our economy through equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Papageorgio

SweetSue92 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this thread because I just heard of this in the last couple of days. But it makes perfect sense. These young men were brought up in the Entitlement Era...they are entitled to women and I"m sure they believe they shouldn't have to do the things men usually have to do to work for them, either, like get a good job, be personally attractive (not just in looks but in personality), etc.
> 
> And I'm sure they deserve 8's on the attractive scale too, even if they themselves are a 3. Sure, because why not?? We're all winners in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...


We live in a world of entitlement, we deserve it, so we should have it. It doesn't matter what the person's politics are, it doesn't matter social status, however, IMHO it seems young whites seem to think they are more entitled than others.


----------



## danielpalos

Would women play the games they do, if they could simply apply for unemployment compensation for merely being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
Click to expand...

You will never know what a woman wants lol


----------



## Andylusion

bodecea said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a girl years ago, and we were talking at lunch break, and she mentioned that she was saving money in a separate bank account, at a different bank than the one she uses.
> 
> Everyone around the lunch table thought that was odd.  "I'm saving in a separate account, so when I'm divorced I'll have money my husband doesn't know about".  Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet, or even dating.  So she's planning for her divorce before even meeting the guy she'll end up divorcing.
> 
> We have a huge cultural / moral break down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a big thing in Japan now with women.....planning that exit strategy even before marriage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and that's working real well for the culture and country.   I read that now almost 1/4 of the entire population is elderly.  Their population has fallen by 2 Million, and the country is so far in debt, that with an ever shrinking working class, some are predicting national default.

This is very bad.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
Click to expand...

I am not Mr. Fantastic.  She can always tell me.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
Click to expand...

One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not Mr. Fantastic.  She can always tell me.
Click to expand...

You mean he haha


----------



## B. Kidd

impuretrash said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've been around for a while. The entire 'movement' is cancer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's not a "movement". A movement is something you join. The "in" part of incel means involuntary. 20-something men frustrated that they can't find a girlfriend is nothing new. It's only thanks to the anonymous internet that they can find other guys like them and talk about it without fear of mockery. Half of them are probably not even 20 yet. They'll grow out of it.
Click to expand...


When I was young we called INCELs jerk-offs.


----------



## Vastator

For the so afflicted who hide their pain behind funny...

Pair- bonding and the Brain | Medical Institute for Sexual Health
However, when an individual choses to engage in casual sex, breaking bond after bond with each new sexual partner, the brain forms a new synaptic map of one-night –stands. This pattern becomes the “new normal” for the individual. When and if the individual later desires to find a more permanent partner, the brain mapping will have to be overcome, making a permanent bond more difficult to achieve. Often the individual is not aware that the brain has adapted to the behavior pattern and he/she begins to think, “That’s just the way I am”,

For those who think “that’s just the way I am”; you did it to yourself.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
Click to expand...

Leave it to you to make it a lefty thing- without evidence

Is this your idea of real Alpha men?


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not Mr. Fantastic.  She can always tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean he haha
Click to expand...

Communication is always important.


----------



## Lysistrata

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.

The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.

I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."


----------



## Vastator

Lysistrata said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
Click to expand...

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
Click to expand...


Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.

How is that equality?


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
Click to expand...


I agree but I think this same process would happen in men as well--the same brain process, I mean. 

Also: I have two kids in college. Your numbers 5, 6, 7 are very low among their peers these days, which is discouraging to say the least. The feminists will scream but it's still true: most good men do not want to "settle down" with women who have been with 50+ men before them. Just not most guy's definition of wife material.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."
Click to expand...


LMAO!!    YOur fantasies notwithstanding, that is not equality.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree but I think this same process would happen in men as well--the same brain process, I mean.
> 
> Also: I have two kids in college. Your numbers 5, 6, 7 are very low among their peers these days, which is discouraging to say the least. The feminists will scream but it's still true: most good men do not want to "settle down" with women who have been with 50+ men before them. Just not most guy's definition of wife material.
Click to expand...

There’s a reason they say you can’t turn a whore into a housewife...


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> this dilemma primarily exists due to capitalism and the capital inequality of our less efficient economy.
> 
> We could be increasing the efficiency of our economy through equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.



Unemployment compensation if you quit your job and don't look for another?   No.


----------



## WinterBorn

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
Click to expand...


I've had pretty good luck just asking them.


----------



## Dick Foster

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



They sound like a bunch of jerk offs.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
Click to expand...


So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.

Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not Mr. Fantastic.  She can always tell me.
Click to expand...


Would it matter?   You don't seem concerned with whether or not she is attracted to you.  You just think she should fuck you in the laughable name of equality.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
Click to expand...

Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
Click to expand...


So, is biology your highest value?


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
Click to expand...

They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is biology your highest value?
Click to expand...

Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.


----------



## Dragonlady

danielpalos said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
Click to expand...


Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.


----------



## WinterBorn

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
Click to expand...


Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.

I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Vastator said:


> For the so afflicted who hide their pain behind funny...
> 
> Pair- bonding and the Brain | Medical Institute for Sexual Health
> However, when an individual choses to engage in casual sex, breaking bond after bond with each new sexual partner, the brain forms a new synaptic map of one-night –stands. This pattern becomes the “new normal” for the individual. When and if the individual later desires to find a more permanent partner, the brain mapping will have to be overcome, making a permanent bond more difficult to achieve. Often the individual is not aware that the brain has adapted to the behavior pattern and he/she begins to think, “That’s just the way I am”,
> 
> For those who think “that’s just the way I am”; you did it to yourself.


Well that is certainly interesting and there is probobly something to it. However, I am living proof that  not everyone who has "been around" succumbs to this problem. I met my wife when I was about 40 . Prior to that, I was quite active sexually, and so was she, but that did not prevent a strong bond from forming that is still working over 30 years later. 

But as far as these INCEL creeps go, I doubt that too many partners were ever their problem. Most are probobly virgins or rely on prostitutes for their kicks. I would also guess that their attitudes towards woman are not the result of not being able to get laid. More likely the attitudes are the cause,


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Most or many people are involuntarily celibate. So what?

What sort of self centered morons would think they have a right
to sex? I don't know much about these creeps and don't want to find out more particularly.
It just seems like the selfish drivel we are inundated with these days.

A little wisdom....before you whine about the pool of partners out there have a good hard look at yourself.
Everyone seems to think they are worth much more than they actually are. Be a decent person.
Work on yourself. Don't think of sex as the be all and end all of any interaction.
Grow up.


----------



## Vastator

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the so afflicted who hide their pain behind funny...
> 
> Pair- bonding and the Brain | Medical Institute for Sexual Health
> However, when an individual choses to engage in casual sex, breaking bond after bond with each new sexual partner, the brain forms a new synaptic map of one-night –stands. This pattern becomes the “new normal” for the individual. When and if the individual later desires to find a more permanent partner, the brain mapping will have to be overcome, making a permanent bond more difficult to achieve. Often the individual is not aware that the brain has adapted to the behavior pattern and he/she begins to think, “That’s just the way I am”,
> 
> For those who think “that’s just the way I am”; you did it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is certainly interesting and there is probobly something to it. However, I am living proof that  not everyone who has "been around" succumbs to this problem. I met my wife when I was about 40 . Prior to that, I was quite active sexually, and so was she, but that did not prevent a strong bond from forming that is still working over 30 years later.
> 
> But as far as these INCEL creeps go, I doubt that too many partners were ever their problem. Most are probobly virgins or rely on prostitutes for their kicks. I would also guess that their attitudes towards woman are not the result of not being able to get laid. More likely the attitudes are the cause,
Click to expand...

In this completely deregulated sexual market place, it seems inconceivable that virtually any person couldn’t get “laid”. For those for which this term genuinely applies, I can only infer that these folks likely have serious mental health issues that make them socially awkward across the board. The innate desire for all living things to procreate, is likely just the straw that breaks the camels back.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dragonlady said:


> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.


Always spot on Dragonlady!! Word up Sista!!


----------



## Andylusion

Lysistrata said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
Click to expand...


Men are generally not quite as affected as women, in pair bonding.  This is one of the reasons that generally if the woman dies first in a marriage, many times the man will remarry.  However if the man dies first, it is far more common for the woman to remain single.
My grandmother was like that.  She lived out the last 20 years of her life alone.

Now it is true that men will imprint on their first sexual experience, but it is different than how a woman pairs.

A man will try and recreate that situation.   So for example, a man whose first few sexual encounters, is meeting up at a dirty motel somewhere, will sometimes spend years trying to recreate that experience.   

Or another situation would be girls that give their boyfriends a blow job.  Then after they get married, the women (reasonably) do not want to do that again, but they fail to understand that these boys have now imprinted on that sexual experience, and they want to keep doing that.

I've seen this play out several times.  The most recent example was my barber.  So he's cutting hair and we're talking (a guy in a room full of guys) "My wife just isn't turning me on anymore".    I dared to ask why, and the story comes up that she used to do (X activity) all the years they were dating, and now she says "I'm not a whore!" when I ask her for (x activity).

Now they are both unhappy, and both of them are at fault.   He allowed that action to be his first sexual experiences, and thus imprinted on them.   She did those actions when she found them repulsive, and now he wants those actions to continue.

This is why you need to keep children away from the media, and left-wing sexuality.  It ruins both people.


----------



## Andylusion

Vastator said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the so afflicted who hide their pain behind funny...
> 
> Pair- bonding and the Brain | Medical Institute for Sexual Health
> However, when an individual choses to engage in casual sex, breaking bond after bond with each new sexual partner, the brain forms a new synaptic map of one-night –stands. This pattern becomes the “new normal” for the individual. When and if the individual later desires to find a more permanent partner, the brain mapping will have to be overcome, making a permanent bond more difficult to achieve. Often the individual is not aware that the brain has adapted to the behavior pattern and he/she begins to think, “That’s just the way I am”,
> 
> For those who think “that’s just the way I am”; you did it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is certainly interesting and there is probobly something to it. However, I am living proof that  not everyone who has "been around" succumbs to this problem. I met my wife when I was about 40 . Prior to that, I was quite active sexually, and so was she, but that did not prevent a strong bond from forming that is still working over 30 years later.
> 
> But as far as these INCEL creeps go, I doubt that too many partners were ever their problem. Most are probobly virgins or rely on prostitutes for their kicks. I would also guess that their attitudes towards woman are not the result of not being able to get laid. More likely the attitudes are the cause,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this completely deregulated sexual market place, it seems inconceivable that virtually any person couldn’t get “laid”. For those for which this term genuinely applies, I can only infer that these folks likely have serious mental health issues that make them socially awkward across the board. The innate desire for all living things to procreate, is likely just the straw that breaks the camels back.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's my take too.   I've seen people that are worse off than me, still able to find a woman more than willing to spread her legs for him.   In another country, I can see how INCEL will work.   I was reading about some guy in India, whose wife before the marriage, started quizzing him on his math skills.  When he couldn't answer her math problems, she broke off the wedding.

Over there, they have standards, and sometimes high standards, and if you can't meet them, you don't get the chick.

But in this country?   We have dating sites for "hookups".  Didn't Craigslist at one point have a forum specifically for hookups that was free?  Isn't there a website for elderly hookups, and married hookups, and the list goes on?

So how anyone in this country could possibly be INCEL, suggests to me that it's more about them simply having a mental problem, rather than any real group of men that can't find 1 of the millions of desperate and easy women in this country.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> 
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is biology your highest value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.
Click to expand...


Okay they are often at odds though. Religions understand this--IOW, "highest values". 

You have "blood and soil" first--those are animal instincts, territory, food and procreation--and then you move into moral and ethical values. You seem to lump all these together. But not only not together, they are often at odds. Not always, but often. 

You must choose the higher value when they are at odds.


----------



## SweetSue92

WinterBorn said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.
> 
> I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.
Click to expand...


I have stated this before. Men who might be a  3-4 on the attractiveness scale in EVERY way--physically, personally, achievement--really believe they will gain the attention of a woman who is 9-10 on the same scale. 

It's the case of every 2nd grade boy is going to play in the NBA--but these INCELs never grow up.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is biology your highest value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay they are often at odds though. Religions understand this--IOW, "highest values".
> 
> You have "blood and soil" first--those are animal instincts, territory, food and procreation--and then you move into moral and ethical values. You seem to lump all these together. But not only not together, they are often at odds. Not always, but often.
> 
> You must choose the higher value when they are at odds.
Click to expand...

It would be quite the mistake to believe that humans aren’t animals...


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> 
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is biology your highest value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay they are often at odds though. Religions understand this--IOW, "highest values".
> 
> You have "blood and soil" first--those are animal instincts, territory, food and procreation--and then you move into moral and ethical values. You seem to lump all these together. But not only not together, they are often at odds. Not always, but often.
> 
> You must choose the higher value when they are at odds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be quite the mistake to believe that humans aren’t animals...
Click to expand...


If we are animals and that ONLY then we do not have all the further things listed in your signature. Love, truth, faith, honor, love, truth, past, present, now, future.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


*They sound like the Antifa losers*


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something much like that is the only reason you exist today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, is biology your highest value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highest? It’s up there. My values are in my sig line, and biology would fall squarely under “truth”. To kid ones self into thinking they can outsmart their biology, would be a mistake. It leads to confusion as to why what one had hoped would work doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay they are often at odds though. Religions understand this--IOW, "highest values".
> 
> You have "blood and soil" first--those are animal instincts, territory, food and procreation--and then you move into moral and ethical values. You seem to lump all these together. But not only not together, they are often at odds. Not always, but often.
> 
> You must choose the higher value when they are at odds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would be quite the mistake to believe that humans aren’t animals...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are animals and that ONLY then we do not have all the further things listed in your signature. Love, truth, faith, honor, love, truth, past, present, now, future.
Click to expand...

If one neglects the basic aspects of their own mortality, and have an understanding of the creature they are; they won’t survive long enough to have to concern themselves with anything loftier.


----------



## Dragonlady

Penelope said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like  Alfa males.
Click to expand...


Alpha


Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
Click to expand...


Apparently, lots of men.  When I was younger, a wealthy older client fell absolutely in love with me, in a puppy dog kind of way.  Sweet and harmless.  But he said I was much too skinny and would look better with 40 more pounds on my frame.  He used to bring me large boxes of pastries full of chocolate and whipped cream, in an effort to fatten me up.  

I have a large framed friend and she has never lacked for good looking male companionship.  She's currently a size 24, and she's married with 3 kids.  But she's also strong and fit.  She has worked as a bouncer, and even dated a rock star, and she was never smaller than a size 18, even in her 20's.


----------



## WinterBorn

Andylusion said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men are generally not quite as affected as women, in pair bonding.  This is one of the reasons that generally if the woman dies first in a marriage, many times the man will remarry.  However if the man dies first, it is far more common for the woman to remain single.
> My grandmother was like that.  She lived out the last 20 years of her life alone.
> 
> Now it is true that men will imprint on their first sexual experience, but it is different than how a woman pairs.
> 
> A man will try and recreate that situation.   So for example, a man whose first few sexual encounters, is meeting up at a dirty motel somewhere, will sometimes spend years trying to recreate that experience.
> 
> Or another situation would be girls that give their boyfriends a blow job.  Then after they get married, the women (reasonably) do not want to do that again, but they fail to understand that these boys have now imprinted on that sexual experience, and they want to keep doing that.
> 
> I've seen this play out several times.  The most recent example was my barber.  So he's cutting hair and we're talking (a guy in a room full of guys) "My wife just isn't turning me on anymore".    I dared to ask why, and the story comes up that she used to do (X activity) all the years they were dating, and now she says "I'm not a whore!" when I ask her for (x activity).
> 
> Now they are both unhappy, and both of them are at fault.   He allowed that action to be his first sexual experiences, and thus imprinted on them.   She did those actions when she found them repulsive, and now he wants those actions to continue.
> 
> This is why you need to keep children away from the media, and left-wing sexuality.  It ruins both people.
Click to expand...


A lot of it depends on when they die.   My mother died when my Dad was in his 70s.   In that age group, women outnumber the men by a significant amount.   Dad went to a square dancing class and said he felt like a prize bull being inspected.


As for the dishonesty in the sexual side of things, that happens and is the fault of the one misleading the other.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dragonlady said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like  Alfa males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alpha
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, lots of men.  When I was younger, a wealthy older client fell absolutely in love with me, in a puppy dog kind of way.  Sweet and harmless.  But he said I was much too skinny and would look better with 40 more pounds on my frame.  He used to bring me large boxes of pastries full of chocolate and whipped cream, in an effort to fatten me up.
> 
> I have a large framed friend and she has never lacked for good looking male companionship.  She's currently a size 24, and she's married with 3 kids.  But she's also strong and fit.  She has worked as a bouncer, and even dated a rock star, and she was never smaller than a size 18, even in her 20's.
Click to expand...


I don't think looks are the be all end all that people think.    I'm an average looking guy and I have not had a serious athletic body since I was in my 20s.  I have enough spending money to have fun, but don't throw it around.   And I have never had a seriously long dry spell unless there was a good reason.  I am almost 60 and have had 30somethings come on to me.   They weren't models, but they were attractive.

The deal is, a guy has to bring something to the table.  Give them a reason to select you.


----------



## Crixus

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?




Hm. Well, I had to google this. I found that there are woman in this to. The whole thing makes no sense to me. The only way to be celibate is to BE celibate. I am no Greek God and I have gotten layed plenty. I not wealthy and I do t have a huge dick. I ride a crappy looking 2008 Superglide and I can get ass. The woman are even more perplexing. Woman can get ass by just showing up. This is dumb.


----------



## Crixus

WinterBorn said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like  Alfa males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alpha
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, lots of men.  When I was younger, a wealthy older client fell absolutely in love with me, in a puppy dog kind of way.  Sweet and harmless.  But he said I was much too skinny and would look better with 40 more pounds on my frame.  He used to bring me large boxes of pastries full of chocolate and whipped cream, in an effort to fatten me up.
> 
> I have a large framed friend and she has never lacked for good looking male companionship.  She's currently a size 24, and she's married with 3 kids.  But she's also strong and fit.  She has worked as a bouncer, and even dated a rock star, and she was never smaller than a size 18, even in her 20's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think looks are the be all end all that people think.    I'm an average looking guy and I have not had a serious athletic body since I was in my 20s.  I have enough spending money to have fun, but don't throw it around.   And I have never had a seriously long dry spell unless there was a good reason.  I am almost 60 and have had 30somethings come on to me.   They weren't models, but they were attractive.
> 
> The deal is, a guy has to bring something to the table.  Give them a reason to select you.
Click to expand...



Typically a good attitude and some self confidence.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
Click to expand...

As women in arranged marriages have told me, they work out so well because all other choices and possibilities have been taken away.


----------



## Andylusion

Tipsycatlover said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As women in arranged marriages have told me, they work out so well because all other choices and possibilities have been taken away.
Click to expand...


Well there is part of that.

Obviously if an individual is sitting around thinking "I could do better than this", then eventually you'll end up acting on that belief.   If on the other hand, you think "This is a commitment, and I have to find a way to make this work", then you are more likely to find a way to make it work.


----------



## Lysistrata

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.
Click to expand...


How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
Click to expand...

that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably when they realized women aren't like they are portrayed in porn... they thought if you waved $5 around 50 gorgeous 18 year olds would strip off their clothes and beg for his .... unit.
> When they climbed out of the basement and saw that women were intelligent beings they flipped out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOur fantasies notwithstanding, that is not equality.
Click to expand...

lol.  yes, it is.  why do you think it isn't?  no actual argument, right winger?  how serious is that.


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you are the only person I've ever talked to, that mentioned it.   So I looked it up, it's interesting I guess.  I find it difficult to believe honestly.
> 
> So I had a roommate from Bangladesh.  We were chatting, and he went over what he had to do, in order to get a women.  She would not let him even touch her, until they were married.  So he had to ask his parents, to talk to her parents.  They arranged a meeting, where he flew there and they talked to him.  Then her parents contacted the school he got his degree at and asked for proof.  Then they contacted his employer, and verified his employment.  They even contacted his friends and family in the US, to ask about his character.   Then he had to fly to Bangladesh, and host a meal with both families, and after that they got married.  Two round trip flights, several long meetings, a banquet, full background check, investigating his character, and a marriage party.
> 
> Sex on the first date? Survey breaks down the numbers : theCHIVE
> 
> More than 1/3rd of western woman will have sex on the very first date.
> 
> I myself, have had women offer themselves to me, on at least 2 occasions, and possibly a 3rd.
> 
> So, it might be true, I don't know.  But it just seems unlikely based on how easy women are.  I mean, isn't it 40% of children are born out of wedlock right now?
> 
> How We Ended Up With 40 Percent of Children Born Out of Wedlock
> 
> And you are telling me that with so many women putting out to guys all over the place that they are not married to, that we have involuntary celibates?
> 
> Could be true. Just seems unlikely.
> 
> I would wager, it's more that men are not taught how to be men, and/or don't have a man in the house to show them what a man looks like (see 40% of children born out of wedlock).
> 
> Worse, I think a ton of stupid people are getting their ideas of how life works, from movies.  I can still remember seeing Highlander (old film), and having this guy saying my name is blaw blaw and I'm immortal, and then he runs himself through with a blade.... to prove he is immortal, and won't die from a blade.    Same scene, him and this woman start making out.  I skipped to the next scene.
> 
> How dumb is that?  What woman is going to be turned on, after a guy who is barely more than a stranger, runs himself through with a knife?    Then Highlander 2 came out, and he almost tosses this woman up against a wall, and starts making out with her pinned to the wall.   What woman is going to be turned on by being manhandled?
> 
> And honestly a ton of women need to stop being stupid, and stop supporting this kind of stuff.   How many millions of women watched 50 shades of grey?   Then some guy sees that film, thinks that's what women want, does the same thing he saw in the movie in real life, and everyone is shocked?
> 
> 'Fifty Shades of Grey': College Student Arrested for Sexual Assault Inspired by Film
> 
> So that's my opinion on it.
> 
> We need to stop having kids out of wedlock.  We need fathers to stay in the home, and show boys what being a man looks like.
> 
> We need to bring back moral values, and stop getting our views on how relationships work, from stupid Hollywood movies.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arranged marriages actually have a pretty good track record. Not only in terms of divorce rate, but happiness too. But then, the culture supports it. You marry and you're expected to stay married and make it work.
> 
> Our culture is completely messed up. Yes, fatherless boys is a big part of that mess up. It doesn't mean every boy without a father will be messed up of course, but it adds to the overall misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree but I think this same process would happen in men as well--the same brain process, I mean.
> 
> Also: I have two kids in college. Your numbers 5, 6, 7 are very low among their peers these days, which is discouraging to say the least. The feminists will scream but it's still true: most good men do not want to "settle down" with women who have been with 50+ men before them. Just not most guy's definition of wife material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s a reason they say you can’t turn a whore into a housewife...
Click to expand...

...that is a stereotype that women must disprove, simply for the sake of equality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this dilemma primarily exists due to capitalism and the capital inequality of our less efficient economy.
> 
> We could be increasing the efficiency of our economy through equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation if you quit your job and don't look for another?   No.
Click to expand...

don't believe in equal protection of the law?  i know it can't be about economics, if it is coming from the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some women are happy being told what to do. can't "blame them, now."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never know what a woman wants lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not Mr. Fantastic.  She can always tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it matter?   You don't seem concerned with whether or not she is attracted to you.  You just think she should fuck you in the laughable name of equality.
Click to expand...

lol.  that is Your sour grapes argument.  

Women have no problem doing, Mr. Fantastic.


----------



## danielpalos

Dragonlady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.
Click to expand...

why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang?  you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> 
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
Click to expand...


My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.

You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.

I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy availability of degenerate pornography definitely is a contributing factor. In this day and age is there a 13 year old boy who doesn't watch porn on a regular basis and if so what the fuck is wrong with him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOur fantasies notwithstanding, that is not equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, it is.  why do you think it isn't?  no actual argument, right winger?  how serious is that.
Click to expand...


Equality means she gets to choose her sexual partners, just like you do.  If she isn't attracted to you, why should she choose you?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...in my case, i practice not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever I have the presence of mind to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
Click to expand...

lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.

You make it seem like women don't like sex.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang?  you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.
Click to expand...


Numbers and practice are your excuses.   How do women know your numbers or that you have less experience??   Do you tell them?   That might be your problem.

How many women do you know that have enjoyed a gangbang?   And how do you know they did?   Did they tell you?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt having a dramatic ill effect on young males.
> And basically no one talks about it. The portrayal of women in porn is all they ever want is huge c_cks slamming them night and day. In every orifice. All you have to do is drive by, wave a few bucks and they can't wait to do anything you want them to.
> Take that impression, and apply the #metoo saga and you have a one fucked up situation.
> Consequently.... just how strange is it feminist and #metoo'ers pay no attention to porn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOur fantasies notwithstanding, that is not equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, it is.  why do you think it isn't?  no actual argument, right winger?  how serious is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality means she gets to choose her sexual partners, just like you do.  If she isn't attracted to you, why should she choose you?
Click to expand...

lol.  i never said she had to.  that is Your straw man argument.


----------



## 22lcidw

Lysistrata said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?
Click to expand...

They are going to go back to what you do not like when they blow their control of our nation. You are the ones who spout stupidity like the handmaids tale and you are actually having your own Prog version against the deplorables. Men will not listen to the at some point. Its already slowly increasing. but there is a way to go. Anti women threads I do not like. Excess feminism I will say what will happen. And it will.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they'll grow out of it. Most of them don't have dads at home and their moms and sisters and every female they know are whores so it will take time for them to come to terms with reality. In the meantime they get on the internet and complain to blow off steam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
Click to expand...


I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.

Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang?  you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Numbers and practice are your excuses.   How do women know your numbers or that you have less experience??   Do you tell them?   That might be your problem.
> 
> How many women do you know that have enjoyed a gangbang?   And how do you know they did?   Did they tell you?
Click to expand...

is "honor" a foreign concept to women?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supposedly pro-woman left has had a disastrous effect on women and men's opinion of them. I know its easy to poke fun at guys mad because they can't get laid but a lot of them actually crave something more traditional. Maybe they're shy about sex and would like to take it slow, holding hands and going on dates. That's probably the main reason Anime is so popular with the so-called alt right, because of the (relatively) wholesome way romantic relationships and female behavior is depicted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.  i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice.  if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOur fantasies notwithstanding, that is not equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, it is.  why do you think it isn't?  no actual argument, right winger?  how serious is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality means she gets to choose her sexual partners, just like you do.  If she isn't attracted to you, why should she choose you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i never said she had to.  that is Your straw man argument.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have.   I remember you talking about you getting "your turn".

You do not care one iota if the woman finds you attractive.   You just think she should put out because.......of equality?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang?  you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Numbers and practice are your excuses.   How do women know your numbers or that you have less experience??   Do you tell them?   That might be your problem.
> 
> How many women do you know that have enjoyed a gangbang?   And how do you know they did?   Did they tell you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is "honor" a foreign concept to women?
Click to expand...


What does "honor" have to do with this?   How does honor get you laid?


----------



## Papageorgio

SweetSue92 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.
> 
> I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. Men who might be a  3-4 on the attractiveness scale in EVERY way--physically, personally, achievement--really believe they will gain the attention of a woman who is 9-10 on the same scale.
> 
> It's the case of every 2nd grade boy is going to play in the NBA--but these INCELs never grow up.
Click to expand...


The more money a man makes also plays a great part in attracting women.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...in my case, it is more about equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.
> 
> Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?
Click to expand...

you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.


----------



## WinterBorn

Papageorgio said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.
> 
> I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. Men who might be a  3-4 on the attractiveness scale in EVERY way--physically, personally, achievement--really believe they will gain the attention of a woman who is 9-10 on the same scale.
> 
> It's the case of every 2nd grade boy is going to play in the NBA--but these INCELs never grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more money a man makes also plays a great part in attracting women.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  Lots of them will be gold diggers, but it does help.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equality??    You want them to fuck you even when they are not attracted to you, because YOU want them to.
> 
> How is that equality?
> 
> 
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.
> 
> Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.
Click to expand...


I did not say that.   But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers.   So you obviously haven't had many takers.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?


----------



## WinterBorn

I am still waiting to hear how a woman having honor gets you laid?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like guys being able to (or not being able to) get laid has become a national security issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...not for me.  I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."
> 
> Who has the really really serious relationship twat?
> 
> Who harasses women for really really serious?
> 
> Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because only wanting twat and nothing more is the reason you can’t get any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang?  you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.
Click to expand...


All women have had more “practice” than you. The only “practice” that you are probably getting is spanking your own monkey. As far as communication? If it as good as your communication ability on this board, you will never get laid.


----------



## Muhammed

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably leftist cucks.....or beta males
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like  Alfa males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've obliviously never met an Alpha male....but that's no surprise
Click to expand...

Alfa male?


----------



## Lysistrata

It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.

Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost. 

I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.


----------



## impuretrash

Lysistrata said:


> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.



Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...


----------



## WinterBorn

Lysistrata said:


> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.



YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is your fantasy, not mine.  you tell me how that is equality.  any more, red herrings, right winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.
> 
> Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers.   So you obviously haven't had many takers.
> 
> If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?
Click to expand...

i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.  

i am talking about equality.  i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship.  i am the one with that.


----------



## WinterBorn

impuretrash said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...
Click to expand...


I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves.   I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.


----------



## impuretrash

WinterBorn said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves.   I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.
Click to expand...


What you're describing is classical liberalism, a concept that disguised itself as an alternative to whatever the American left is selling but it's really just the same thing but with more foreign war for oil. True right wing conservatism is a society where women are women and men are men and homos are in the closet, where they belong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My fantasy is actual equality.  Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.
> 
> You don't want equality.  Equality lets everyone choose in the same way.   That is not what you want.
> 
> I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman?   If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you?  I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.
> 
> Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers.   So you obviously haven't had many takers.
> 
> If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> i am talking about equality.  i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship.  i am the one with that.
Click to expand...


I did not mention capitalism.  Nor did I mention serious relationships.

I asked a simple question.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?


----------



## WinterBorn

impuretrash said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves.   I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're describing is classical liberalism, a concept that disguised itself as an alternative to whatever the American left is selling but it's really just the same thing but with more foreign war for oil. True right wing conservatism is a society where women are women and men are men and homos are in the closet, where they belong.
Click to expand...


When I made my comment I was talking about heterosexuality.


----------



## Crepitus

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Most or many people are involuntarily celibate


I don't think that's true.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


Never heard of these guys ..it dont take much effort to get those panties to come flyin off....you should recruit them for the gays 
they probably look like the alberta communist party 




I mean who would fuck any of these people... Although I bet ya I could fix up big ol lurch in the back ... have to see her body first 
I love super tall broads with legs that dont quit


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you have nothing but fallacy.  your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.
> 
> You make it seem like women don't like sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not posted a single logical fallacy.  There is no strawman in my posts.
> 
> Most of the women I know love sex.   But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone.   Why should they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that.   But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers.   So you obviously haven't had many takers.
> 
> If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> i am talking about equality.  i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship.  i am the one with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not mention capitalism.  Nor did I mention serious relationships.
> 
> I asked a simple question.
> 
> If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?
Click to expand...

her personality is more important.


----------



## WinterBorn

Deplorable Yankee said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of these guys ..it dont take much effort to get those panties to come flyin off....you should recruit them for the gays
> they probably look like the alberta communist party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean who would fuck any of these people... Although I bet ya I could fix up big ol lurch in the back ... have to see her body first
> I love super tall broads with legs that dont quit
Click to expand...


The girl holding the sign is pretty hot.  The girl beside her has potential.   

But dating a communist wouldn't work.


----------



## Vastator

Lysistrata said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?
Click to expand...

Quite well. For the ones for whom it didn’t work out, not so well... Their genetic contribution has been left in the dustbin of history.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.
> 
> The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.
> 
> I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage?  Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."
> 
> 
> 
> Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant  proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.
> 
> Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite well. For the ones for whom it didn’t work out, not so well... Their genetic contribution has been left in the dustbin of history.
Click to expand...


But there again, so what? 

It seems you have to choose one: biological values or ethics and morality.


----------



## Vastator

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. But only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future. 
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.



So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.

In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride. 

So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.
> 
> In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.
> 
> So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?
Click to expand...

You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.
> 
> In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.
> 
> So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.
Click to expand...


The future doesn't belong to any of us. What are "genes", other than your own personal pride, like building little human buildings you can leave behind. Okay, fine, you have the freedom to do that if you like. But you cannot guarantee that this is "the future". A pandemic could wipe out those "genes". So could another asteroid, an ice age caused by sunspots, many things.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.
> 
> In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.
> 
> So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The future doesn't belong to any of us. What are "genes", other than your own personal pride, like building little human buildings you can leave behind. Okay, fine, you have the freedom to do that if you like. But you cannot guarantee that this is "the future". A pandemic could wipe out those "genes". So could another asteroid, an ice age caused by sunspots, many things.
Click to expand...

To be immobilized to innaction for fear of what might happen, which is out of our control is weakness. Ones efforts are more productive when applied to that which they can control.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?
Click to expand...

If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.
Click to expand...


That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that. You also said those principles got me here. So, this biology seems very important as life values to you.


----------



## Vastator

SweetSue92 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that.
Click to expand...

I will. You went so far as to actually use quotations, and claim I underlined something that I did not. It was willfully, and knowingly dishonest, and done only in an effort to give readers a sense that what was merely your interpretation; were my actual words. I give no time to such people. Goodbye...


----------



## SweetSue92

Vastator said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
> As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
> For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will. You went so far as to actually use quotations, and claim I underlined something that I did not. It was willfully, and knowingly dishonest, and done only in an effort to give readers a sense that what was merely your interpretation; were my actual words. I give no time to such people. Goodbye...
Click to expand...


Okay so same goes. When you're losing so badly that you don't want to claim your actual positions as your actual positions, then your positions are tenuous at best.

I would urge you to really think about your highest life values. Bye


----------



## Lysistrata

impuretrash said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...
Click to expand...


No. There is no left or right here. It seems that women have been stuck with the "no sex" thing, and men have lived "free for all" lives, with no one intervening. Does "morality" say that a virgin marries a virgin, a "pure" man and  "pure" woman, marry, or not? 

What I hear from these "Christians" is that all sex is cheap sex, and a male dominates a female, not a relationship among them.


----------



## Lysistrata

WinterBorn said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.

I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.


----------



## danielpalos

All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?



It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.

A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.

Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.

And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.


----------



## Papageorgio

Lysistrata said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
Click to expand...


Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.


----------



## justinacolmena

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?



Catholic priests who risk excommunication?

Or else you're talking some kind of mental hospital or prison.

Other than that, well, it’s not always “that guy’s” supreme goal in life to “get laid,” however “hot” you think he is.

Quite possibly, either you’re not his type, or he’s not the type to offer money for sex on a one-night-stand basis.


----------



## Lysistrata

Papageorgio said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.
Click to expand...

It is my stance on relationships, that people indulge in a sexual relationship in a context of love and respect.An emotional relationship. The Christian faith has a definite rule, although I do not necessarily agree with it. I am tired of those people who have lived a "free or all" sexual life and then scream about what a Christian they are. There is a problem between men and women here. If we want to observe 
"christian morality" here, we have to talk about it. According to Christianity, a man who has never had sex marries a woman who has never had sex. The sexual awakening occurs for both on the bed after their wedding.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Deplorable Yankee said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of these guys ..it dont take much effort to get those panties to come flyin off....you should recruit them for the gays
> they probably look like the alberta communist party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean who would fuck any of these people... Although I bet ya I could fix up big ol lurch in the back ... have to see her body first
> I love super tall broads with legs that dont quit
Click to expand...


That is one low-T picture. 

I'd hit 4 of them females, especially crazy lurch in the back..

Crazy make da hot lovin'.


----------



## Marion Morrison

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
Click to expand...


Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?

Do you really think you're going to get through to him? 

Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
Click to expand...


I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
Click to expand...


Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?


----------



## badger2

It must be a conspiracy.

'Imaginer meme que c'est la Vierge, meme severe, qui met le Christ en croix pour faire naitre le nouvel homme, et la femme chretienne qui conduit les hommes au supplice [Imagine, even, that it is the Virgin, the severe mother, who puts Christ on the cross so that the new man may be born, and the Christian woman who leads men to the torture].'
(Deleuze, Critique et Clinique, Paris, 1993)


----------



## Marion Morrison

I blame the FBI shutting down Backpage for heightened INCEL (and fbj) frustration.

danielpalos only goes to the handjob spas.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
Click to expand...

i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.

I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
Click to expand...


Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
Click to expand...

It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."


----------



## Papageorgio

Lysistrata said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is my stance on relationships, that people indulge in a sexual relationship in a context of love and respect.An emotional relationship. The Christian faith has a definite rule, although I do not necessarily agree with it. I am tired of those people who have lived a "free or all" sexual life and then scream about what a Christian they are. There is a problem between men and women here. If we want to observe
> "christian morality" here, we have to talk about it. According to Christianity, a man who has never had sex marries a woman who has never had sex. The sexual awakening occurs for both on the bed after their wedding.
Click to expand...


That is how it worked for my wife and I. It worked in our case however, not everyone is the same. We have been married for 38 years and there is no other person I'd want to be with. We are the best of friends.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
Click to expand...


Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
Click to expand...


Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
Click to expand...

Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.

Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.


----------



## Lysistrata

Papageorgio said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is my stance on relationships, that people indulge in a sexual relationship in a context of love and respect.An emotional relationship. The Christian faith has a definite rule, although I do not necessarily agree with it. I am tired of those people who have lived a "free or all" sexual life and then scream about what a Christian they are. There is a problem between men and women here. If we want to observe
> "christian morality" here, we have to talk about it. According to Christianity, a man who has never had sex marries a woman who has never had sex. The sexual awakening occurs for both on the bed after their wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is how it worked for my wife and I. It worked in our case however, not everyone is the same. We have been married for 38 years and there is no other person I'd want to be with. We are the best of friends.
Click to expand...


I am so happy for you in your marital relationship. Kudos! May you two live a long life and prosper together as you two are one. Congratulations and blessings!


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is capital under capitalism.  How much can a mostly nice guy blame women for, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
Click to expand...


I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.

Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> 
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
Click to expand...


So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?


----------



## Third Party

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


We used to call them Dweebs in high school. They always have their hand.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Third Party said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> We used to call them Dweebs in high school. They always have their hand.
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> 
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
Click to expand...



Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes capital if you want hookers.    Otherwise, you need to be able to show her a reason you are worth her time.
> 
> A reasonably attractive women with a good personality can usually get laid about anytime she wants (unless she is married or in a relationship).   You have to show her why she should choose you over another guy.
> 
> Having a job does increase your chances, that is for sure.    Use that as inspiration to go and get one.
> 
> And you seem to be able to blame women for most of it.   They aren't interested in equality.  They have no honor.   If they were your friend they would submit in order to help you out.  Those are all examples of you blaming women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
Click to expand...


I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.


----------



## Lysistrata

People who follow the Christian faith still need to hash out what is permitted, sexually speaking, in the Christian faith and what is not. What are the rules in this faith? I can understand that a virgin marries a virgin, but this does not seem to have been the case. Too many non-virgins marrying virgins.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
Click to expand...

That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i agree with you that i should not be blaming women for something that is relatively institutional and inherent as that form of inequality under Capitalism.
> 
> I recently saw a video on YouTube where it was actual custom and tradition, to be able to "sell your wife at market" in order to be able to lawfully divorce her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
Click to expand...

Marriage is and was, a religious institution.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geez, are you going back and forth with danielfailosbot again?
> 
> Do you really think you're going to get through to him?
> 
> Tell him to stick his pecker into a light socket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
Click to expand...


Except the church in England didn't care if you divorced or sold your wife, I know you need to justify you being wrong but that's cool by me.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not believe in a religious faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.
Click to expand...


I did. But it does not answer my question. Does the Christian faith teach that one should not have sex before marriage and then not cheat on one's marriage partner, or not? This is a simple thing. Frankly, I do see reasons for having sex before marriage, but let's be firm on what we believe and live by. Is one's virginity a "gift" to one's bride or groom after taking vows or not? This has to do with an individual's personal conduct throughout his or her life.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which orifice on your body did you pull that one from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. But it does not answer my question. Does the Christian faith teach that one should not have sex before marriage and then not cheat on one's marriage partner, or not? This is a simple thing. Frankly, I do see reasons for having sex before marriage, but let's be firm on what we believe and live by. Is one's virginity a "gift" to one's bride or groom after taking vows or not?
Click to expand...


It's better if it is, but not absolutely a hard rule. It's better from a common sense standpoint, anyway.
People that are virgins until wedding night tend to stay together more.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you profess a religious faith that you follow and has guided your personal behavior throughout your life? Have you followed the rules of you faith with respect to sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. But it does not answer my question. Does the Christian faith teach that one should not have sex before marriage and then not cheat on one's marriage partner, or not? This is a simple thing. Frankly, I do see reasons for having sex before marriage, but let's be firm on what we believe and live by. Is one's virginity a "gift" to one's bride or groom after taking vows or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's better if it is, but not absolutely a hard rule. It's better from a common sense standpoint, anyway.
> People that are virgins until wedding night tend to stay together more.
Click to expand...


But this is not the the majority of us, now is it? I happen to be among those folks who have reserved my sexuality for the few persons deserving of it. It is a spiritual thing. Think back on those with whom you have had sexual relations. Did you commit to them? Did you commit to your Creator?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to. At least the ones in Leviticus 18, is it? It's fairly easy, and a good way to never be on Springer or Maury.
> 
> Leviticus 18 NIV;KJV - Unlawful Sexual Relations - The LORD - Bible Gateway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. But it does not answer my question. Does the Christian faith teach that one should not have sex before marriage and then not cheat on one's marriage partner, or not? This is a simple thing. Frankly, I do see reasons for having sex before marriage, but let's be firm on what we believe and live by. Is one's virginity a "gift" to one's bride or groom after taking vows or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's better if it is, but not absolutely a hard rule. It's better from a common sense standpoint, anyway.
> People that are virgins until wedding night tend to stay together more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is not the the majority of us, now is it? I happen to be among those folks who have reserved my sexuality for the few persons deserving of it. It is a spiritual thing. Think back on those with whom you have had sexual relations. Did you commit to them? Did you commit to your Creator?
Click to expand...

I wish I would have stayed a virgin and gotten married.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
Click to expand...

I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
Click to expand...


How's that workin' out for ya?


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
Click to expand...

if only, 

there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe that you kept the rule of preserving your virginity for your marriage bed, but this is the rule of your faith as was told to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you clicked the link I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did. But it does not answer my question. Does the Christian faith teach that one should not have sex before marriage and then not cheat on one's marriage partner, or not? This is a simple thing. Frankly, I do see reasons for having sex before marriage, but let's be firm on what we believe and live by. Is one's virginity a "gift" to one's bride or groom after taking vows or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's better if it is, but not absolutely a hard rule. It's better from a common sense standpoint, anyway.
> People that are virgins until wedding night tend to stay together more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is not the the majority of us, now is it? I happen to be among those folks who have reserved my sexuality for the few persons deserving of it. It is a spiritual thing. Think back on those with whom you have had sexual relations. Did you commit to them? Did you commit to your Creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish I would have stayed a virgin and gotten married.
Click to expand...


Just find  a quiet place were you can have s sit-down with your Creator. We are all on the same boat as you are. Let us all acknowledge this.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
Click to expand...


My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.

from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
"A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."

Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
Click to expand...


It started out as a religious institution.   Now it can be partly religious, or it can be completely secular.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
Click to expand...


There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


*In the 1960s the Left started attacking family values such as marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and children.
Congratulations.
The result is a dying American culture.
Is that what they wanted?*


----------



## WinterBorn

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *In the 1960s the Left started attacking family values such as marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and children.
> Congratulations.
> The result is a dying American culture.
> Is that what they wanted?*
Click to expand...


What was attacked was the expectation and requirement to have a family, to be a mother, to have children and to be a father.

If someone doesn't want that, who are you to tell them they must?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

WinterBorn said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *In the 1960s the Left started attacking family values such as marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and children.
> Congratulations.
> The result is a dying American culture.
> Is that what they wanted?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was attacked was the expectation and requirement to have a family, to be a mother, to have children and to be a father.
> 
> If someone doesn't want that, who are you to tell them they must?
Click to expand...

*I am not saying that everyone must have children, but the consequence is a dying culture. Europe is also dying.
What culture do you think will replace American and European cultures?*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.


It's also a result of empowerment of women. They just don't have to take our shit anymore.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> What culture do you think will replace American and European cultures?


None.  Our culture is secular government, classical liberalism,  and rule of rational law. Those aren't getting replaced by better ideas, because there aren't any better ideas, no matter what religion or culture you are.


----------



## WinterBorn

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *In the 1960s the Left started attacking family values such as marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and children.
> Congratulations.
> The result is a dying American culture.
> Is that what they wanted?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was attacked was the expectation and requirement to have a family, to be a mother, to have children and to be a father.
> 
> If someone doesn't want that, who are you to tell them they must?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I am not saying that everyone must have children, but the consequence is a dying culture. Europe is also dying.
> What culture do you think will replace American and European cultures?*
Click to expand...


Dying?   Populations continue to grow.   Just because there is not as big a margin between the majority and minority races does not mean a dying culture.   If whites become a minority by race, they will still be the majority by money and control.

And just by way of an FYI, American culture is a mixed bag of many cultures.


----------



## theHawk

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



You’re the only one that ever talks about “INCELs”.   Sort of like how TommyTaint and RegressivePatriot can’t stop talking about homosexuals, maybe because you are one?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

This is the dumbest fucking thread I have read since I started on this forum.

May God have mercy on your souls!


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.
Click to expand...

lol.  dear, i only "get harassed for really really serious relationships."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
Click to expand...


What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.

I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, i only "get harassed for really really serious relationships."
Click to expand...


So there are girls out there who want really serious relationships with you?    Do they go along with your full body massage with happy endings?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
Click to expand...


quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, i only "get harassed for really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are girls out there who want really serious relationships with you?    Do they go along with your full body massage with happy endings?
Click to expand...

...do Only floozies get "harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships?"

I never get "harassed for sex online".  I guess that Only happens to floozies.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Daniel, how does submitting to your sexual desires when she is not attracted to you show a woman wants equality?    Isn't it just the opposite?
> 
> 
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
Click to expand...


Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your red herring.  Why not explain it yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
Click to expand...

you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya?
> 
> 
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, i only "get harassed for really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are girls out there who want really serious relationships with you?    Do they go along with your full body massage with happy endings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...do Only floozies get "harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships?"
> 
> I never get "harassed for sex online".  I guess that Only happens to floozies.
Click to expand...


You never get harassed for sex.  Hell, you never get offered sex.   I think the fact is you never get sex.

You might start by stopping your ridiculous expectation that real life is anything like porn.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My red herring?    I think you just spout whatever logical fallacies you have heard, without knowing what they actually mean.   Let me educate you.
> 
> from:  15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
> "A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts."
> 
> Now, to clarify, you have used the equality excuse numerous times, including within this thread.   YOu bring it up and I ask for clarification.  That is not a red herring logical fallacy.    Ok?    Good.    Glad we could have this little talk.    Now perhaps you can answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
Click to expand...


YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if only,
> 
> there were nice girls who are willing to get serious, to be found in modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ARE nice girls who are willing to get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, i only "get harassed for really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are girls out there who want really serious relationships with you?    Do they go along with your full body massage with happy endings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...do Only floozies get "harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships?"
> 
> I never get "harassed for sex online".  I guess that Only happens to floozies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never get harassed for sex.  Hell, you never get offered sex.   I think the fact is you never get sex.
> 
> You might start by stopping your ridiculous expectation that real life is anything like porn.
Click to expand...

I must not be a floozy.  I do get "harassed for really really serious relationships by women who are from out of State", all the time.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about right winger and just make up stories.  I have given you express examples, you just make up your own distracting stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?  

Men have arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?   You have given me expressed examples of why you claim a girl wanting equality means she should have sex with you?    No, you have not.
> 
> I am not making up stories of what you have said over and over.  You just want to pretend you didn't say them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
Click to expand...


Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:

“.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”

“Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”

“We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”

“Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”

“equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”

“Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”

“...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
how about some, equality, chics. “

“...in my case, it is more about equality.”

“...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”

“why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
Click to expand...

Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
Click to expand...

Chubby Chubby Chubby.....why do you always come into threads moaning about your own weight issues, projecting them onto others in a sad attempt at....er....compensation?   Get thee to a gym!


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> quote me.  don't imply me, right winger.  i resort to the fewest fallacies, not You.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
Click to expand...

..your alleged point about equality is?

i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."


----------



## bodecea

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *They sound like the Antifa losers*
Click to expand...

More like Proud Boys


----------



## bodecea

Papageorgio said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.
> 
> I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. Men who might be a  3-4 on the attractiveness scale in EVERY way--physically, personally, achievement--really believe they will gain the attention of a woman who is 9-10 on the same scale.
> 
> It's the case of every 2nd grade boy is going to play in the NBA--but these INCELs never grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more money a man makes also plays a great part in attracting women.
Click to expand...

Oh yes...we've certainly seen THAT play out on the national stage, haven't we?


----------



## bodecea

Papageorgio said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.
Click to expand...

You just described most CRCs.


----------



## danielpalos

Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in ISIS territory, Bubba. Not in the US of A!
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
Click to expand...

Oh?   So there's no such thing as civil marriage?   Justices of the Peace everywhere are shocked.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
Click to expand...

As they laugh on their way out the door.........................


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Church related, back then.  "Old customs die hard."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So there's no such thing as civil marriage?   Justices of the Peace everywhere are shocked.
Click to expand...

Some would claim, Religious marriages are more serious than civil marriages.


----------



## Papageorgio

bodecea said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fat guys?    I think a lot of this goes to these men wanting the model looks and having little to offer someone.
> 
> I am pretty sure there are homely or overweight women who are just as lonely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have stated this before. Men who might be a  3-4 on the attractiveness scale in EVERY way--physically, personally, achievement--really believe they will gain the attention of a woman who is 9-10 on the same scale.
> 
> It's the case of every 2nd grade boy is going to play in the NBA--but these INCELs never grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more money a man makes also plays a great part in attracting women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yes...we've certainly seen THAT play out on the national stage, haven't we?
Click to expand...


See it all the time. Look at Lionell Ritchie, Blake Shelton, Ronnie Wood, Mel Gibson, Ben Affleck, Marc Anthony, Sean Penn, and so on. Some people are shallow.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As they laugh on their way out the door.........................
Click to expand...

...and, don't take them seriously regarding a really really serious relationship.  

xoxo


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the OP is obsessed with his unfortunate life conditions haha
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
Click to expand...

Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol


----------



## Papageorgio

bodecea said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's time for all of us to face the fact that we do not know how sexuality (in particular, heterosexuality) works. People have pursued me, whom I did not want. I've been pinned to a wall by someone (uh, at least three) who wanted to find my tonsils. I've wanted someone who would not have wanted me in a life-time. I've worked with guys half my age who introduced me to hilarious things, like "Funny or Die." I know of a male actor (not personally, of course) whose clothing I would be delighted to rip off. Yeah, spank me, I'm a heterosexual.
> 
> Myself? I am an introvert who throughout my life has associated sex with intimacy and relationships, so I have very few notches on my bedpost, both before and after marriage.  I do not have the numbers of sex partners of some of the male and female posters here.  I have twice been approached by men who were already married after I got a divorce. I told them both to get lost.
> 
> I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu may have as many notches as many of the men on here.   Men tend to exaggerate their conquests, while women tend to downplay them.   Not that it matters.  You get to choose for yourself.  If you're happy, go with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. I have always been bewildered by the role of the whole religion game in this. Are we "moral"? Are we not? There has never been an actual "morality." Some people celebrate Christianity and, the next second, will have sex, or have had sex with anything still breathing. I do not want to use the word "conservative" because it now is fraught with such horrible baggage that it is now worthless. My personal program is to keep my body for someone I love. Always has been. I have never been promiscuous in my behavior. It all comes down to whether you believe in love between human beings. I carry this belief.
> 
> I do not understand those who argue for Christianity and then do not follow it in their personal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a Christian isn't just saying the right thing, it is doing the right thing. A Christian is required to love God with his whole heart, soul and mind and love his neighbor as himself. Labeling yourself as a Christian does not make one a Christian. I agree with your stance on marriage. Love your belief system in this area. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just described most CRCs.
Click to expand...


I don't worry about others, I have enough imperfections to work on. I leave others to take care of themselves.


----------



## danielpalos

...i don't mind practicing not judging women by the clothes they don't wear on the Internet and try to port it to real life, whenever i have the presence of mind to do so.  Does that count?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As they laugh on their way out the door.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and, don't take them seriously regarding a really really serious relationship.
> 
> xoxo
Click to expand...


Apparently they don't take you seriously at all. At least you have Rosie and her four sisters to take care of you.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As they laugh on their way out the door.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and, don't take them seriously regarding a really really serious relationship.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they don't take you seriously at all. At least you have Rosie and her four sisters to take care of you.
Click to expand...

That should be ok, too.  Should I be more grateful entire gangs of women don't simply harass me for sex until i play along with their games?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should get some religion and marriage, then you'd have a better chance to find someone to "practice" with, maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to simply inform women, a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of a really really serious relationship.  So, if they are not doing me, they cannot be really really serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As they laugh on their way out the door.........................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and, don't take them seriously regarding a really really serious relationship.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they don't take you seriously at all. At least you have Rosie and her four sisters to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That should be ok, too.  Should I be more grateful entire gangs of women don't simply harass me for sex until i play along with their games?
Click to expand...


It's your fantasy world, don't drag me into it.


----------



## bodecea

theHawk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the only one that ever talks about “INCELs”.   Sort of like how TommyTaint and RegressivePatriot can’t stop talking about homosexuals, maybe because you are one?
Click to expand...

No I am not...and wanting to have people stop talking about them will not make them go away.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So there's no such thing as civil marriage?   Justices of the Peace everywhere are shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some would claim, Religious marriages are more serious than civil marriages.
Click to expand...

Some would claim.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that an INCEL representative would join.   Welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
Click to expand...

Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?


----------



## Lysistrata

What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every poll says the happiest woman are married to conservative men.. sorry little buddy lol get a face lift haha get some braces
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
Click to expand...

Does it say happier?


----------



## danielpalos

Lysistrata said:


> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.


what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And again: let’s remember the fact that INCEL is part of the conservative movement, of the right’s hostility toward women who aren’t sufficiently ‘compliant’ or ‘submissive,’ and of the misogyny common to far too many on the right – Trump in particular.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?



Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church related? It was in England, and it was expensive to divorce so men decided to sell their wives instead. I read nothing about a church being involved. Maybe you can enlighten us.
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce was more restricted back then.  There were only a few reasons that persons could use to ask the religious authorities for a divorce.
> 
> Back then, women were considered property and could be legally sold as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Divorce wasn't restricted, it was expensive, and the church was not involved that I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is and was, a religious institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?   So there's no such thing as civil marriage?   Justices of the Peace everywhere are shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some would claim, Religious marriages are more serious than civil marriages.
Click to expand...


Some would be wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
Click to expand...


Depends on whether she accepts it your way.  The decisions on what you do is a mutual decision.


----------



## Lysistrata

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.


----------



## Lysistrata

I like the tradition that I found (on YouTube) of Jewish Orthodox grooms and brides spending a few days before their wedding ceremony in prayer and fasting and reflection upon what they are about to do. Then they have the ceremony. Then the couple retires to a private room to eat their first meal together as a married couple away from all others. I think that this focuses on both of them what it means to be a couple. Then they come out and the celebration begins.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Every poll".......ok, link a few of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it say happier?
Click to expand...

So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
Click to expand...

You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?

I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.


----------



## danielpalos

Lysistrata said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
Click to expand...

I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."


----------



## Lysistrata

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.[/QUO
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you talk and compromise. You argue, then you find the solution. Fight. Compromise.  If you to can unite your bodies, you can also pray to reunite your minds.
> 
> I notice that you disregarded my comment about people praying to be the best in the their unity with their upcoming wives and husbands.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Lysistrata said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.[/QUO
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you talk and compromise. You argue, then you find the solution. Fight. Compromise.  If you to can unite your bodies, you can also pray to reunite your minds.
> 
> I notice that you disregarded my comment about people praying to be the best in the their unity with their upcoming wives and husbands.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In my case, i wish could have prayed for true love and performed true love rituals at a temple dedicated to a goddess of love, my whole life.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
Click to expand...


You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?
> 
> I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.
Click to expand...


I think things would be much the same.  Just because you have an income doesn't mean you have all you want.

And just because she isn't necessarily looking for someone to support her, doesn't mean she doesn't still have standards for a partner.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  Now you are denying it?    That is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
Click to expand...


Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
Click to expand...

that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?
> 
> I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think things would be much the same.  Just because you have an income doesn't mean you have all you want.
> 
> And just because she isn't necessarily looking for someone to support her, doesn't mean she doesn't still have standards for a partner.
Click to expand...

i think things would be much more different.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?
> 
> I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.
Click to expand...


No real reason?    Do you think this new unemployment will be enough for her to eat out often?   Drive a nice car?   Go on nice vacations?  Go shopping?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just make up your own stories, right winger.  nothing but straw men and red herrings while alleging, learning how to fish is important in modern information age times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
Click to expand...

lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?
> 
> I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real reason?    Do you think this new unemployment will be enough for her to eat out often?   Drive a nice car?   Go on nice vacations?  Go shopping?
Click to expand...

You are the one saying that, not me.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
Click to expand...


No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would women make the same choices they do, if they could instead, opt for unemployment compensation should they find themselves unemployed and needing an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows.  But I am pretty sure they will not pass laws allowing people to draw unemployment when they are not looking for a job and quit their last job.   They certainly won't do it so women will be easier for you to seduce.   And women certainly wouldn't make a choice of you unless you have something to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no real reason.  Why should I take you seriously?
> 
> I don't think women would act the same way, if money was less of an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real reason?    Do you think this new unemployment will be enough for her to eat out often?   Drive a nice car?   Go on nice vacations?  Go shopping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, not me.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am saying that.    Younger women want a guy who can do things, take them places, go on vacations.   And despite what your profile says, you are certainly not in your mid 50s.    I think you claimed you are 56?    LMAO!


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu make the same accusations and have the same refusal to point out which posts contain stories or logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
Click to expand...


Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?


----------



## karpenter

Dragonlady said:
			
		

> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs..


They Think Their Porn Is REAL !!

Enough Of That
I Once Stumbled Across A Cite For Deliberately Celibate
It Was Interesting....
They Point To The Holy Men Of India
The Holy Men Don't Cut Their Hair, Nails
Or Loose Semen As It's All A Loss Of Their Spiritual Essence
There Were Links To Other Brother Sites
Plus They Have YouTube Videos
They Also Seemed Versed In The Bible
It Was All Interesting, As I Said
But Then They Got All Upset When I Pointed Out Simple Things
That Proves The World Isn't FLAT
That Their Photo 'Evidence' Is Camera Lens Tricks

It Seemed Their Site Was On It's Last Legs Anyway
I Dropped The Bookmark, And I Haven't Been Back


----------



## theHawk

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And again: let’s remember the fact that INCEL is part of the conservative movement, of the right’s hostility toward women who aren’t sufficiently ‘compliant’ or ‘submissive,’ and of the misogyny common to far too many on the right – Trump in particular.



The right’s “hostility” towards women?  Conservatives believe in taking care of their women, and raising their children into responsible adults.

Regressives are the ones who encourage women to abort their babies and take up careers during their child bearing years, which just leaves them childless and miserable in their later years.

 Regressives are the ones that discourage personal responsibility, leaving many women as single mothers.

Regressives are the ones that hate women so much they replace them with men pretending to be women.

Regressives are the ones that want to disarm women by taking away their right to own firearms, leaving them vulnerable to thugs and rapists.

Regressives are the ones that love Islam, a backwards ideology that treats women like livestock.

Nobody hates women more than regressive leftwingers.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
Click to expand...

i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but hearsay and gossip, dear?
> 
> Men have arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
Click to expand...

it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
Click to expand...


I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned "flipping a coin." Have a sit-down and look into each other's eyes and _listen. _If you are supposed to be "committed," then commit. Do vows mean nothing? One commits to these vows for all his or her life. When you go to the Christian altar, the Jewish chappah, and the sacred rites of all other religions, it is a commitment of one person to another.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
Click to expand...


If she agrees to the coin flip you are fine, if she doesn't? You don't get screwed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments are laughable and your denial of what you have said is just sad.    Here are comments you have made in this thread:
> 
> “.not for me. I simply refuse to get serious if women can "do all of the other ones and not me."”
> 
> “Why should guys have to try harder for twat than women do for dick, if we only want twat?”
> 
> “We know women know how to talk and how to make appointments!”
> 
> “Does it merely take the equality of gangs of women fornicating men until we proclaim, Woe is we, we cannot handle uncommitted sex any more and need to, get serious.”
> 
> “equal work for equal pay. i should have girl friends who share the same interests.”
> 
> “Women are worse and cannot handle it even for the sake of equality.”
> 
> “...free full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work for right wing women willing to vote blue, next election cycle!
> how about some, equality, chics. “
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality.”
> 
> “...in my case, it is more about equality. i really am quite bashful due to my low numbers and lack of practice. if women were more equal, entire gangs of them should enjoy, "breaking in the new guy."”
> 
> “why should i believe Any woman who has already enjoyed a gangbang? you all have to have lower numbers and less practice than me, for Me to take You, seriously.”
> 
> 
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
Click to expand...


If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.


----------



## Papageorgio

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
Click to expand...


Crazy isn't it? Trying to give advice to a guy that can't write out his complete thoughts.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
Click to expand...

You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean regarding "problem resolution" when you both, "want it Your way."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she agrees to the coin flip you are fine, if she doesn't? You don't get screwed.
Click to expand...

do only men have, "honor"?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..your alleged point about equality is?
> 
> i am not the "floozy who gets harassed for sex instead of really really serious relationships."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
Click to expand...

you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...


The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.   

But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she agrees to the coin flip you are fine, if she doesn't? You don't get screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do only men have, "honor"?
Click to expand...


Do men have honor?  

I asked once before, what does honor have to do with the topic?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its hard to take you seriously about not being a floozy when you have spent so much time offering free nude massage and g-spot play for any women willing to make an appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


No, I just think money isn't the main issue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

you miss the point, like usual.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she agrees to the coin flip you are fine, if she doesn't? You don't get screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do only men have, "honor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do men have honor?
> 
> I asked once before, what does honor have to do with the topic?
Click to expand...

Men have arguments not just gossip and hearsay.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all Talk, right winger.  i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just think money isn't the main issue.
Click to expand...

guys who have plenty of money don't have problems getting laid under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
Click to expand...


If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.    

The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she agrees to the coin flip you are fine, if she doesn't? You don't get screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do only men have, "honor"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do men have honor?
> 
> I asked once before, what does honor have to do with the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip and hearsay.
Click to expand...


So honor is about not gossiping?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all talk from someone who has not gotten laid and has the least amount of experience.    So who do you think knows more?  The one with little experience and low numbers or the one with plenty of experience and higher numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just think money isn't the main issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guys who have plenty of money don't have problems getting laid under Capitalism.
Click to expand...


So now it's about sex?

If you have to have money to get laid, get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
Click to expand...

Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must mean, i am the most moral, if not the most holy through that practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just think money isn't the main issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guys who have plenty of money don't have problems getting laid under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now it's about sex?
> 
> If you have to have money to get laid, get a job.
Click to expand...

it is also about equality and equal work for equal pay.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had low numbers because you made a choice.    It isn't by your choice.   You've made that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> you make it seem like i just need lucre under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just think money isn't the main issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guys who have plenty of money don't have problems getting laid under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now it's about sex?
> 
> If you have to have money to get laid, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is also about equality and equal work for equal pay.
Click to expand...


You seem to think you need money to get laid.   So get a job and make some money.   

Not sure why you switched to equality and equal work for equal pay.  I would ask, but you wouldn't answer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
Click to expand...


And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.
Click to expand...

you don't get it.  why should i bother?  all you have is sour grapes.


----------



## Marion Morrison

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, who wants to boink fat chicks? It's more of a personal problem for you I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chubby Chubby Chubby.....why do you always come into threads moaning about your own weight issues, projecting them onto others in a sad attempt at....er....compensation?   Get thee to a gym!
Click to expand...


Get thee to a butt-reducer, doublewide! 

Doublewide Diesel-Dyke Buttacea.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is about sex.   If you were to talking about flipping a coin to decide whether you go to a movie or go dancing, you were intentionally misleading.
> 
> But, just be clear, I you ask a woman to flip a coin to decide what you do in bed, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't get it.  why should i bother?  all you have is sour grapes.
Click to expand...


I wonder the same thing, given your strange avoidance and off the wall posts.  

You don't like it when people don't understand what you mean, but you refuse to clarify.  

And please don't try to claim your replies are above what I can understand.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you miss the point, like usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't get it.  why should i bother?  all you have is sour grapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing, given your strange avoidance and off the wall posts.
> 
> You don't like it when people don't understand what you mean, but you refuse to clarify.
> 
> And please don't try to claim your replies are above what I can understand.
Click to expand...

dude, you make up your own stories.  why should i care what You think.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I miss the point it is because you are intentionally vague.   And especially because, when I ask for clarification, you refuse to answer.
> 
> The topic we were talking about was women and getting laid, and the INCELs who don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't get it.  why should i bother?  all you have is sour grapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing, given your strange avoidance and off the wall posts.
> 
> You don't like it when people don't understand what you mean, but you refuse to clarify.
> 
> And please don't try to claim your replies are above what I can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you make up your own stories.  why should i care what You think.
Click to expand...


I make up nothing.   And I notice you still make the accusation without clarifying what you think is a story.    Pretty typical.    Misdirection and lies.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk it out.   Anything that either person puts as off limits is off limits.    If there is something that either person doesn't want to do, you don't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...


Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we already covered that I cannot put all of the blame on women.  I am wondering how to get along better with women, regardless.  I am trying long distance communication with women from out of State.  They always "harass me for a really really serious relationship."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing you said had any bearing on your "flip a coin" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't get it.  why should i bother?  all you have is sour grapes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder the same thing, given your strange avoidance and off the wall posts.
> 
> You don't like it when people don't understand what you mean, but you refuse to clarify.
> 
> And please don't try to claim your replies are above what I can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you make up your own stories.  why should i care what You think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make up nothing.   And I notice you still make the accusation without clarifying what you think is a story.    Pretty typical.    Misdirection and lies.
Click to expand...

you have nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is easier said than done.  i don't mind, flipping a coin if we both are being obstinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.    If she doesn't want certain things, you live with it.  The same goes for things you want.   That is it.  No one should ever do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.
Click to expand...


So you are claiming now that when you posted "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way." you were not talking about sex?     Really?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming now that when you posted "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way." you were not talking about sex?     Really?
Click to expand...

it is about equality and an "even chance", in that case.


----------



## Marion Morrison

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *In the 1960s the Left started attacking family values such as marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and children.
> Congratulations.
> The result is a dying American culture.
> Is that what they wanted?*
Click to expand...


I believe so.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet she doesn't mind cancelling the sex if you insist on her doing something she doesn't want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming now that when you posted "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way." you were not talking about sex?     Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and an "even chance", in that case.
Click to expand...


Not what I asked.    Is it about sex?

If it about something trivial like whether to eat at McDonalds or Subway, or which movie to go see, a flip of the coin is fine.

If it is about sexual activities, flipping a coin is not fine.    If is lands on tails and the way you want to get it bothers her, you don't do it.   Everyone gets to say no to whatever makes them uncomfortable sexually.    You will have to do without that particular thing with this person.  Just like she (or he) will have to do without any particular thing that you do not want to do.


----------



## Lysistrata

theHawk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again: let’s remember the fact that INCEL is part of the conservative movement, of the right’s hostility toward women who aren’t sufficiently ‘compliant’ or ‘submissive,’ and of the misogyny common to far too many on the right – Trump in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right’s “hostility” towards women?  Conservatives believe in taking care of their women, and raising their children into responsible adults.
> 
> Regressives are the ones who encourage women to abort their babies and take up careers during their child bearing years, which just leaves them childless and miserable in their later years.
> 
> Regressives are the ones that discourage personal responsibility, leaving many women as single mothers.
> 
> Regressives are the ones that hate women so much they replace them with men pretending to be women.
> 
> Regressives are the ones that want to disarm women by taking away their right to own firearms, leaving them vulnerable to thugs and rapists.
> 
> Regressives are the ones that love Islam, a backwards ideology that treats women like livestock.
> 
> Nobody hates women more than regressive leftwingers.
Click to expand...


Who are these "regressive leftwingers"? I have never met any one of them, nor anyone who does what you say they do. Are you living on Fantasy Island? Are you on drugs?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insisting on making it sexual.  I don't mind flipping a coin if a decision needs to be made sooner rather than later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming now that when you posted "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way." you were not talking about sex?     Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and an "even chance", in that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.    Is it about sex?
> 
> If it about something trivial like whether to eat at McDonalds or Subway, or which movie to go see, a flip of the coin is fine.
> 
> If it is about sexual activities, flipping a coin is not fine.    If is lands on tails and the way you want to get it bothers her, you don't do it.   Everyone gets to say no to whatever makes them uncomfortable sexually.    You will have to do without that particular thing with this person.  Just like she (or he) will have to do without any particular thing that you do not want to do.
Click to expand...

it is Easy to talk.


----------



## Darkwind

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


Does it upset you?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.




That is absolutely NOT the religious view of sex, gf. 

Is this some kind of weird projection thing? I'm getting confuzzled.


----------



## Lysistrata

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
Click to expand...

I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?


----------



## danielpalos

Lysistrata said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
Click to expand...

i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse". 

You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos just wants: "Heads you suck my dick, tails I eat the pussy".


He just doesn't know how to go about getting that.

Dude, I had that mastered when I was 17.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ok
> lol
> NYT op-ed reports religious conservative women are 'happiest of all wives in America' — and the social media mob melts down
> 
> Pretty easy .. did you need a link lol have you seen your beasty lib girls that post on here? Wooof
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it say happier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.
Click to expand...

It reads as stated ..  can you handle it?


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely NOT the religious view of sex, gf.
> 
> Is this some kind of weird projection thing? I'm getting confuzzled.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the view of sex among the "Christian" cults. the fundies. When they bring up sex on USMB, for example, it is always in the context of some sort of heterosexual free-for-all, promiscuous men and promiscuous women just waiting for closing time at some bar. "Oh, keep your knees together, you slut!" I get the impression that fundies are promiscuous or view everyone else as promiscuous.

Just what is the "religious" view of sex? What religion? What is your answer to the guys on USMB who post pictures of young women with big breasts? Can I post a picture of some guy who attracts me (Yes, there are guys who attract me because I am a heterosexual female).  Can you take your message of celibacy to your nearest military base? High school hang-out? Is the rule, for all to be followed, no sex until you are married and then stay true to the person with whom you have taken vows, or not? Is it the rule that a virgin marries a virgin and they discover sex together?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely NOT the religious view of sex, gf.
> 
> Is this some kind of weird projection thing? I'm getting confuzzled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems to be the view of sex among the "Christian" cults. the fundies. When they bring up sex on USMB, for example, it is always in the context of some sort of heterosexual free-for-all, promiscuous men and promiscuous women just waiting for closing time at some bar. "Oh, keep your knees together, you slut!" I get the impression that fundies are promiscuous or view everyone else as promiscuous.
> 
> Just what is the "religious" view of sex? What religion? What is your answer to the guys on USMB who post pictures of young women with big breasts? Can I post a picture of some guy who attracts me (Yes, there are guys who attract me because I am a heterosexual female).  Can you take your message of celibacy to your nearest military base? High school hang-out? Is the rule, for all to be followed, no sex until you are married and then stay true to the person with whom you have taken vows, or not? Is it the rule that a virgin marries a virgin and they discover sex together?
Click to expand...

Oh lawd, I got washed over by teh crazy wave.

Yes you can post a picture of some guy you are attracted to.

It IS better if a man and a woman are virgins when they get married. There's some common sense to that.

Is that me? Oh, unfortunately not.

I can't say I haven't had some fun, but I may have had even more if I did things more God's way.
I think I would have.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the original article, not filtered by your silly "Blaze"....note that the women are happy because they don't have to work outside the home and claim their husbands help around the house and children....hey, I'd be happy with that too.   Opinion | Religious Men Can Be Devoted Dads, Too
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it say happier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It reads as stated ..  can you handle it?
Click to expand...

More than any INCEL whiney boy.


----------



## Marion Morrison

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> 
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it say happier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It reads as stated ..  can you handle it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than any INCEL whiney boy.
Click to expand...


Why is Bodey so hung up on this INCEL stuff? The girls she lusts after run from her, or what?
Home alone with teh dildo and USMB?

Owait, Butterfly + dildo.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! The article  proved my point thanks for agreeing lol
> 
> 
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does it say happier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It reads as stated ..  can you handle it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than any INCEL whiney boy.
Click to expand...

You can only make transsexual woman happy lol


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos just wants: "Heads you suck my dick, tails I eat the pussy".
> 
> 
> He just doesn't know how to go about getting that.


thank goodness we don't have to put up with women just doing us and then asking us to flip a coin for a relationship.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos just wants: "Heads you suck my dick, tails I eat the pussy".
> 
> 
> He just doesn't know how to go about getting that.
> 
> 
> 
> thank goodness we don't have to put up with women just doing us and then asking us to flip a coin for a relationship.
Click to expand...


This needs a STFU button.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you try to dodge what you actually said.   The first mention of flipping a coin was "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.".     Now you want to pretend it wasn't about sex?    lol     Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  we can assume we each had our own priorities and all it really takes is coin toss to move forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are claiming now that when you posted "what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"? Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way." you were not talking about sex?     Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and an "even chance", in that case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.    Is it about sex?
> 
> If it about something trivial like whether to eat at McDonalds or Subway, or which movie to go see, a flip of the coin is fine.
> 
> If it is about sexual activities, flipping a coin is not fine.    If is lands on tails and the way you want to get it bothers her, you don't do it.   Everyone gets to say no to whatever makes them uncomfortable sexually.    You will have to do without that particular thing with this person.  Just like she (or he) will have to do without any particular thing that you do not want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is Easy to talk.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   You talk to the person and establish your limits and theirs.  You discuss condoms, and let them know you will be wearing one.  You discuss any number of things.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
Click to expand...


So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
Click to expand...

You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.
Click to expand...


I’ll give you credit, in this thread you are the Master Debater..


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’ll give you credit, in this thread you are the Master Debater..
Click to expand...

i should become a better, jack of all trades.  any local women want to, help out?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.
Click to expand...


Here is a story for you.   If you ever do get a woman willing to go to bed with you, and the two of you can't agree on what is off limits, don't suggest flipping a coin.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is your opinion of simply "flipping a coin"?  Heads, you get it Your way and Tails, i get it My way.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a story for you.   If you ever do get a woman willing to go to bed with you, and the two of you can't agree on what is off limits, don't suggest flipping a coin.
Click to expand...

my girlfriends usually dump me for being too boring.  maybe they need to ask for a coin flip?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that one's opinion is the mere flipping of a coin. You did. If you cannot sit down and have an honest discussion, what are you doing in bed with her or him? Do you have sex with someone and then don't have the courage to look that person in the eye?
> 
> 
> 
> i am referring to a very limited circumstance where simply flipping a coin may be simpler due to any "impasse".
> 
> You make it seem simple, but Congress cannot do it consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Congress should flip a coin when they are gridlocked?    That is pure insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, like usual.  have fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a story for you.   If you ever do get a woman willing to go to bed with you, and the two of you can't agree on what is off limits, don't suggest flipping a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my girlfriends usually dump me for being too boring.  maybe they need to ask for a coin flip?
Click to expand...


Maybe you need to develop some interests that aren't boring.  Or suggest things to them, but accept it if they say no.


----------



## danielpalos

...any local girl friends want to make any suggestions?  my inbox welcomes you.  xoxo


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is missing from these "discussions" of heterosexuality and sexual health is honest discussion, leaving aggression at the door. If one can have sex in the bedroom, one can have an honest discussion in the kitchen. The idea is not only to _talk_ about what _you want, _it is also to sit down and _listen_ to how the other person feels and _what s/he wants_. It takes commitment and work. To those "religious" folks who think that sex is just fucking, like they continually portray it, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely NOT the religious view of sex, gf.
> 
> Is this some kind of weird projection thing? I'm getting confuzzled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems to be the view of sex among the "Christian" cults. the fundies. When they bring up sex on USMB, for example, it is always in the context of some sort of heterosexual free-for-all, promiscuous men and promiscuous women just waiting for closing time at some bar. "Oh, keep your knees together, you slut!" I get the impression that fundies are promiscuous or view everyone else as promiscuous.
> 
> Just what is the "religious" view of sex? What religion? What is your answer to the guys on USMB who post pictures of young women with big breasts? Can I post a picture of some guy who attracts me (Yes, there are guys who attract me because I am a heterosexual female).  Can you take your message of celibacy to your nearest military base? High school hang-out? Is the rule, for all to be followed, no sex until you are married and then stay true to the person with whom you have taken vows, or not? Is it the rule that a virgin marries a virgin and they discover sex together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh lawd, I got washed over by teh crazy wave.
> 
> Yes you can post a picture of some guy you are attracted to.
> 
> It IS better if a man and a woman are virgins when they get married. There's some common sense to that.
> 
> Is that me? Oh, unfortunately not.
> 
> I can't say I haven't had some fun, but I may have had even more if I did things more God's way.
> I think I would have.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Now that you have had your fun. If this is "God's way," as you put it. Get the message out to males everywhere. It seems that it has been women who have born the brunt of the blame for it being otherwise. Shamed. Ridiculed. For doing the same thing as you have done. Apparently, you were impure when you married. What is your message to young men coming up? Purity? Should they be given a ring to wear until they can safely slip it onto their bride's finger? Should men wear white at their weddings?

No, this is not "crazy." It is just laying on you the same as you have laid on everybody else. According to you, it is "God's way."


----------



## danielpalos

Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.


----------



## danielpalos

...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?



Appointment?  For what?    How do you know they don't make appointments?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appointment?  For what?    How do you know they don't make appointments?
Click to expand...

lol.  you don't really care and are not about actually solving any problems.  why should i bother.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appointment?  For what?    How do you know they don't make appointments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you don't really care and are not about actually solving any problems.  why should i bother.
Click to expand...


I have probably tried to give you more legitimate and good advice than anyone on these forums.

I just want to clarify you are talking about your free full body massages with G-spot play.   So you don't pull the same "why are you making it sexual?" thing you did before.

Face it, if they wanted a massage from you, they would make an appointment.


----------



## Papageorgio

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appointment?  For what?    How do you know they don't make appointments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you don't really care and are not about actually solving any problems.  why should i bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have probably tried to give you more legitimate and good advice than anyone on these forums.
> 
> I just want to clarify you are talking about your free full body massages with G-spot play.   So you don't pull the same "why are you making it sexual?" thing you did before.
> 
> Face it, if they wanted a massage from you, they would make an appointment.
Click to expand...


He is like always, trolling for the sake of trolling. If he isn’t trolling he is the dumbest moron to walk the earth and no girl in their right mind would massage him unless she was getting big bucks.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appointment?  For what?    How do you know they don't make appointments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you don't really care and are not about actually solving any problems.  why should i bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have probably tried to give you more legitimate and good advice than anyone on these forums.
> 
> I just want to clarify you are talking about your free full body massages with G-spot play.   So you don't pull the same "why are you making it sexual?" thing you did before.
> 
> Face it, if they wanted a massage from you, they would make an appointment.
Click to expand...

yet, "i only get harassed for really really serious relationships."  how can that be if i am so Bad, allegedly?  

i don't get harassed for sex only really really serious relationships.


----------



## Dana7360

Sunni Man said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma would have been if he'd had foot fungus
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays if a school kid pulled a stunt like that. He would be arrested and wind up in juvenile court with a record.   ....
Click to expand...



In your time it would have also.

What you did was criminal. You assaulted a person then stole their shoes and socks.

I don't know when you went to school but when I went to school if the administration of the school had found out about it, you would have faced serious consequences for your crimes of assault and battery along with theft. 

What I find very disturbing is that you're proud of what you did.


----------



## Lysistrata

danielpalos said:


> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.


I would favor polyandry.


----------



## danielpalos

Lysistrata said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
Click to expand...

why is that?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
Click to expand...


She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
Click to expand...

With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
Click to expand...


A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.

If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
Click to expand...

and, the equality for men with polyandry is?


----------



## WheelieAddict

The "incel" movement is one the alt-right fascists most successful recruitment grounds for new young nazis.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
Click to expand...


The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.

And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.

On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
Click to expand...


And with polyandry, every man can marry a nice woman.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
Click to expand...


I have been involved in the polyamory community for years.   Polyamory is like polygamy without needing a marriage license.   It is about loving more than one person.  Whether you love them equally or you have a primary and other(s) you love, is up to you and the people involved.   Not all of the relationships last.  But then, not all monogamous relationships last.

Try polyamory before you decide polygamy is all that.


----------



## Papageorgio

I know a couple that had an open marriage, he went on on how liberating it was, she got pregnant by another man and now the have no marriage. 

I prefer one man, one woman and that is it. Maybe conservative but in the long run less complicated.


----------



## WinterBorn

Papageorgio said:


> I know a couple that had an open marriage, he went on on how liberating it was, she got pregnant by another man and now the have no marriage.
> 
> I prefer one man, one woman and that is it. Maybe conservative but in the long run less complicated.



To each their own.   Poly is not for everyone.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
Click to expand...

Every woman can marry a nice guy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy!  So Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with polyandry, every man can marry a nice woman.
Click to expand...

are there nice women or is that what is lacking for women to be, nice?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been involved in the polyamory community for years.   Polyamory is like polygamy without needing a marriage license.   It is about loving more than one person.  Whether you love them equally or you have a primary and other(s) you love, is up to you and the people involved.   Not all of the relationships last.  But then, not all monogamous relationships last.
> 
> Try polyamory before you decide polygamy is all that.
Click to expand...

i am mostly all talk and mostly no action with women online.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> 
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every woman can marry a nice guy.
Click to expand...


Yes, you said that.   The same can be said of polyandry, but you thought that equality was missing.  Wouldn't it be missing in polygamy as well?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would favor polyandry.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is a woman?    And prefers more than one husband over being part of a harem, perhaps?     Although, polygamy is actually more than one spouse of either gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with polyandry, every man can marry a nice woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are there nice women or is that what is lacking for women to be, nice?
Click to expand...


There are a lot of nice women.   I have dated quite a few and live with one now.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you said that.   The same can be said of polyandry, but you thought that equality was missing.  Wouldn't it be missing in polygamy as well?
Click to expand...

equal nice person work for equal nice person pay?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice guy is great.    But marriage is about more than just not being an asshole.
> 
> If all a woman can say about a man is "He is nice", it doesn't sound like love and there better be more.
> 
> 
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you said that.   The same can be said of polyandry, but you thought that equality was missing.  Wouldn't it be missing in polygamy as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal nice person work for equal nice person pay?
Click to expand...


No idea what that means.    Work is not the same as romantic interactions.   

But there ARE nice girls out there.  The problem is, they have learned to avoid men who play games.   And they are typically looking for a partner, not someone they will have to support.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and, the equality for men with polyandry is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you said that.   The same can be said of polyandry, but you thought that equality was missing.  Wouldn't it be missing in polygamy as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal nice person work for equal nice person pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that means.    Work is not the same as romantic interactions.
> 
> But there ARE nice girls out there.  The problem is, they have learned to avoid men who play games.   And they are typically looking for a partner, not someone they will have to support.
Click to expand...

lol.  equality of work for equality of pay is not concept for you?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equality is whether the people involved in the marriage make it equal.   That is up to them.
> 
> And I didn't say polyandry was equal.  I simply explained why Lysistrata might prefer it.
> 
> On face value, is any polygamy about equality?   If you marry two women, how is that equal for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you said that.   The same can be said of polyandry, but you thought that equality was missing.  Wouldn't it be missing in polygamy as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal nice person work for equal nice person pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that means.    Work is not the same as romantic interactions.
> 
> But there ARE nice girls out there.  The problem is, they have learned to avoid men who play games.   And they are typically looking for a partner, not someone they will have to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  equality of work for equality of pay is not concept for you?
Click to expand...


It is a great concept, for your employment.    Judging what is equal work and equal pay in a personal relationship is a tougher call.

Both can work and contribute to the bills and expenses.    In our house we both pay half of the bills and expenses.   The fact that we don't make the same amount in salary does not factor in.


----------



## danielpalos

I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends. 

I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends.
> 
> I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.



Boys should be willing to help girls without any strings attached.

If you are working on generating enough income to take someone to dinner, I think suggesting polygamy is well beyond your means.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends.
> 
> I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boys should be willing to help girls without any strings attached.
> 
> If you are working on generating enough income to take someone to dinner, I think suggesting polygamy is well beyond your means.
Click to expand...

you make it seem like i only and merely need, money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends.
> 
> I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boys should be willing to help girls without any strings attached.
> 
> If you are working on generating enough income to take someone to dinner, I think suggesting polygamy is well beyond your means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i only and merely need, money.
Click to expand...


I never said "only".    But when you don't have a job you don't have an income.   An income is part of being a grownup in todays world.   If someone is looking for a child to raise, they might pick you.   If they are looking for a husband, they want an adult.

Working online can be good.  But you still have to work a full day.  My son does it and makes a living.   And there is a difference between "looking into" and actually doing something.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends.
> 
> I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boys should be willing to help girls without any strings attached.
> 
> If you are working on generating enough income to take someone to dinner, I think suggesting polygamy is well beyond your means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i only and merely need, money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said "only".    But when you don't have a job you don't have an income.   An income is part of being a grownup in todays world.   If someone is looking for a child to raise, they might pick you.   If they are looking for a husband, they want an adult.
> 
> Working online can be good.  But you still have to work a full day.  My son does it and makes a living.   And there is a difference between "looking into" and actually doing something.
Click to expand...

i am starting out with letters of interest.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that boys should be willing to help girls who are willing to be friends.
> 
> I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner.  i am looking into virtual work i can do from home and still do my domestic chores and stuff. it is great to not have to commute, and we do have pets.  i am also into container gardening and getting into lashing and tying knots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boys should be willing to help girls without any strings attached.
> 
> If you are working on generating enough income to take someone to dinner, I think suggesting polygamy is well beyond your means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make it seem like i only and merely need, money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said "only".    But when you don't have a job you don't have an income.   An income is part of being a grownup in todays world.   If someone is looking for a child to raise, they might pick you.   If they are looking for a husband, they want an adult.
> 
> Working online can be good.  But you still have to work a full day.  My son does it and makes a living.   And there is a difference between "looking into" and actually doing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am starting out with letters of interest.
Click to expand...


Letters of interest?    Just apply for the job.   Apply for numerous jobs.   The first one to make you an offer gets you.  And you can keep looking while you work & earn.

And your domestic chores are still outside your daily work, even if its online.   Working online does not mean you can do your chores while you work.

And as for pets, lots of people have pets and still work a full-time job.   I have had a dog most of my life, but I still work.   The pets will be fine.   Just go to work.


----------



## WinterBorn

Look, Daniel, I get that you don't want to work.   But you want girls to date and you want things.   That means you have to have a job to earn the money for those things.  Be it online or in person, you need a job and an income.    The sooner you buckle down and get a job, the sooner you might actually get laid.

I am sure the rebellious "I don't want to waste my life and be a cog in the machine" played well when you were 16 or 17.   But being a grownup means you take responsibility for your own life or do without most of the things other adults enjoy.


----------



## danielpalos

I don't lose my arguments as often as you.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.



LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.

If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
Click to expand...

i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.
Click to expand...


Developing clients?    Based on what?   You haven't done anything.   There are companies that will hire you for various jobs online.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Developing clients?    Based on what?   You haven't done anything.   There are companies that will hire you for various jobs online.
Click to expand...

You haven't won any arguments with me.  All you have is stories, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Developing clients?    Based on what?   You haven't done anything.   There are companies that will hire you for various jobs online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't won any arguments with me.  All you have is stories, story teller.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!   Aww, running away again?

I tell you what I have done.  I've gotten laid.  I have a g/f.   I have a job.   And i have enough money to take someone out to dinner.   Tell THAT story to your online friends.


----------



## PixieStix

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate 

I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.



Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.


----------



## Papageorgio

PixieStix said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
Click to expand...




PixieStix said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
Click to expand...


Frasier explained it best.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Developing clients?    Based on what?   You haven't done anything.   There are companies that will hire you for various jobs online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't won any arguments with me.  All you have is stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Aww, running away again?
> 
> I tell you what I have done.  I've gotten laid.  I have a g/f.   I have a job.   And i have enough money to take someone out to dinner.   Tell THAT story to your online friends.
Click to expand...

in other words, all i really needed the whole time, was mere lucre.


----------



## danielpalos

PixieStix said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
Click to expand...

mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.  

desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
Click to expand...

implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!   I don't know that you've ever won one.   But your comment is completely off topic.
> 
> If you want to get an entry level job (all you are qualified for) you apply for it.   Sending letters of inquiry is just a delaying tactic so you won't have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> i am developing clients.  you only have stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Developing clients?    Based on what?   You haven't done anything.   There are companies that will hire you for various jobs online.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't won any arguments with me.  All you have is stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Aww, running away again?
> 
> I tell you what I have done.  I've gotten laid.  I have a g/f.   I have a job.   And i have enough money to take someone out to dinner.   Tell THAT story to your online friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, all i really needed the whole time, was mere lucre.
Click to expand...


Is that what I said?   Your "in other words" are actually a whole new set of words that are not what I said.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
Click to expand...


You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?

Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
Click to expand...

lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?

touch therapy is actually therapeutic.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
Click to expand...


I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.

Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.   

YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...


I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
Click to expand...

you are the story teller, not me.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.
Click to expand...

lol.  you are not Simon who can simply say so.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
> 
> 
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
Click to expand...


Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> mostly nice guys are willing to be boys and friends, at the same time.
> 
> desperate women are welcome to full body massage until they get over it.  xoxo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
Click to expand...

You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.


----------



## deanrd

I seem to have more in common with "Chad" than I do with "Incel".







I dated somewhere in between.  Stacy's looks, but Becky's smarts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post like you know.   With such low numbers and little experience, how would you know?
> 
> Are desperate women making appointments?  Or is this just another story you tell?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
Click to expand...


Claiming you have won does not change reality.

How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are not Simon who can simply say so.
Click to expand...


I don’t have to say anything, your own posts show your incompetence with your every post.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  why be so cynical, story teller who is soo, successful?
> 
> touch therapy is actually therapeutic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
Click to expand...

...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't lose my arguments as often as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are not Simon who can simply say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t have to say anything, your own posts show your incompetence with your every post.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that is the biggest lie I have seen posted on this board! Lol! That is some funny crap! Thanks for the great laughs tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are not Simon who can simply say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t have to say anything, your own posts show your incompetence with your every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.
Click to expand...


Your posts prove I am right, thank you for making it look so easy.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implying stuff Always works for you in right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t need to imply anything, you show your incompetence with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are not Simon who can simply say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t have to say anything, your own posts show your incompetence with your every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts prove I am right, thank you for making it look so easy.
Click to expand...

it is not difficult in right wing fantasy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
Click to expand...


I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.

Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?

I thought you didn't want floozies?

Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
Click to expand...

i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."  

i imagine capitalism works. 

did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.  

You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?


----------



## Dragonlady

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
Click to expand...


Well that explains a lot.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
Click to expand...

i am a mostly nice guy.


----------



## danielpalos

Dragonlady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
Click to expand...

still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
Click to expand...


So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.

And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
Click to expand...


I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.

For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.

If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
Click to expand...

you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> 
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
Click to expand...


You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.

Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
Click to expand...


It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
Click to expand...

don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.


----------



## bodecea

Marion Morrison said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they happier, or are they just more comfortable?
> 
> 
> 
> Does it say happier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can't answer.   Quelle surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It reads as stated ..  can you handle it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than any INCEL whiney boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is Bodey so hung up on this INCEL stuff? The girls she lusts after run from her, or what?
> Home alone with teh dildo and USMB?
> 
> Owait, Butterfly + dildo.
Click to expand...

Oh looky....I accept your surrender, little boy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
Click to expand...

how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> 
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
Click to expand...


So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
Click to expand...


You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.

You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.

I think I hit it pretty well.


----------



## bodecea

PixieStix said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women who "can't get laid"? What do we call them? Oh wait we call them desperate
> 
> I see you haven't grown a brain yet bodey
Click to expand...

Women who can't get laid?   A small group, a very small group.   Because women learn that they can do without men laying them just fine.


----------



## bodecea

deanrd said:


> I seem to have more in common with "Chad" than I do with "Incel".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dated somewhere in between.  Stacy's looks, but Becky's smarts.


Except that Chad pic...probably gay.


----------



## bodecea

deanrd said:


> I seem to have more in common with "Chad" than I do with "Incel".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dated somewhere in between.  Stacy's looks, but Becky's smarts.


And that Becky....doubt most of them want to "fuck Chad".


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am cynical because of my experience with you on these forums.
> 
> Yes, touch therapy is very good.   But thats not what I asked.
> 
> YOu have been begging women to let you give them a full body massage for a couple of years now.  I just wondered if the desperate women were making appontments.
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
Click to expand...

"Besides, i live at home with my mom."


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have found female intuition to be startlingly accurate.
> 
> Do you imagine that you will make $500 a week and the women will be falling at your feet?
> 
> I thought you didn't want floozies?
> 
> Living at home with your Mom at 56 is kinda weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i haven't found the same results for free when "no money was involved."
> 
> i imagine capitalism works.
> 
> did you go to, pre-judge instead of pre-med?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't pre-judge you.   I took you at your word.  I accept what you say you are.
> 
> You say you haven't found the same results.  Have you tried when you had money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
Click to expand...

Ah...and a "nice guy".....we know ALLLLLLLLL about them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am a mostly nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
Click to expand...

you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.  

but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
Click to expand...

i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the story teller, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating that does not make it any more true or you any more pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying that, floozy who can't win your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Claiming you have won does not change reality.
> 
> How are you coming taking appointments?  Surely they feel safe with an unemployed 56 year old, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  We already agreed i merely need lucre, under capitalism.  Besides, i live at home with my mom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Besides, i live at home with my mom."
Click to expand...

how Bad can that be?  "big chickens"


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
Click to expand...


I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.

I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
Click to expand...


I guess you need ambition and a job.


----------



## bodecea

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
Click to expand...

If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
Click to expand...

lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> 
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
Click to expand...

i am not the one who is losing my arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> 
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
Click to expand...


Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
Click to expand...


I think you are losing your argument with money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
Click to expand...

lol.  i gainsay your contention.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to develop some sort of venture from home.   That is pretty vague.   And its not as if you were employed last week.   And you have nothing now but some letters of inquiry.   That all sounds like you are not ambitious.
> 
> You want to work, finally.   So, as you said, you could take someone out to dinner.  That means you have little or no money.
> 
> I think I hit it pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
Click to expand...

you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i Only need lucre, under Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.

Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
Click to expand...


The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you need ambition and a job.
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
Click to expand...

We have, "under God" in our pledge.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
Click to expand...

lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
Click to expand...

That no one is required to say.0


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
Click to expand...

it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter. 

Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.  

xoxo


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
Click to expand...

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd guess someone is battling serious depression.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
Click to expand...


Yes we do.  It was added in the 1950s to combat the red menace.

We also have banned school led prayer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the one who is losing my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do.  It was added in the 1950s to combat the red menace.
> 
> We also have banned school led prayer.
Click to expand...

so, a bible applies in a moral argument.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it isn't average.  It also isn't average for a 56 year old man to quit his job and not look for another.    Now I see why you want unemployment without all the rules.   You just want someone to pay you for nothing.   And welfare won't help you because someone in the house makes a comfortable living.
> 
> I haven't seen you win a single argument.  I've seen you argue about interpersonal relationships, your desire for unemployment to just pay you because you quit your job and don't want another, and your nonsense about the 2nd amendment.   Maybe you have won other arguments, but on the three topics I named you have certainly not.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...


All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> 
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
Click to expand...


Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are losing your argument with money.
> 
> 
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do.  It was added in the 1950s to combat the red menace.
> 
> We also have banned school led prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, a bible applies in a moral argument.
Click to expand...


It can apply all you want, for you.   For a muslim, a hindu, a pagan or an atheist, it has no bearing at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
Click to expand...


I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are Wrong, simply Because I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
Click to expand...

you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
Click to expand...

that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are richer than me; that means, you have to go to hell before me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do.  It was added in the 1950s to combat the red menace.
> 
> We also have banned school led prayer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, a bible applies in a moral argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can apply all you want, for you.   For a muslim, a hindu, a pagan or an atheist, it has no bearing at all.
Click to expand...

lol.  it is a moral argument.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
Click to expand...

why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
Click to expand...


I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.

You have.....well.....not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
Click to expand...

lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> 
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
Click to expand...


I don't believe I am going to hell.

And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> 
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
Click to expand...

lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
Click to expand...


Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> 
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is show one example of such.   But you can't, so you keep throwing wild accusations.  Meaningless
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
Click to expand...


I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
Click to expand...

in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one with nothing but red herrings and straw men, not real arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
Click to expand...

in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
Click to expand...


Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
Click to expand...


It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered arguments, backed up my claims and answered your questions.
> 
> You have.....well.....not.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
Click to expand...


Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.
Click to expand...

That is all you do.  I actually win my arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
Click to expand...

that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  my arguments make more sense than yours.  you simply tell stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
Click to expand...

How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I am going to hell.
> 
> And where we will go after we die has no bearing on our discussion.   So your attempt to plead off by saying "why should I take you seriously now?" is just a laughable attempt to run from the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all you do.  I actually win my arguments.
Click to expand...


If I claimed that you couldn't spell worth a damn and that your posts are grammatical nightmares, you would ask me to point those out.  Right?

Same with your pointless claims of fallacies.    I don't post fallacies, and you cannot point out where I do.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think either of us said that.    But women certainly don't want to date a man who lives with his Mom (and doesn't have a job).
> 
> 
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
Click to expand...


Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.

I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?    We should revamp the entire unemployment system to cater to lazy people who do not want to work, but want an income??   Notice I said "want" an income, not "need" an income.   That argument makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
Click to expand...


Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol  i don't believe you more than i believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all you do.  I actually win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I claimed that you couldn't spell worth a damn and that your posts are grammatical nightmares, you would ask me to point those out.  Right?
> 
> Same with your pointless claims of fallacies.    I don't post fallacies, and you cannot point out where I do.
Click to expand...

wow.  i can say the same thing.  all you have is red herring and straw men, not valid arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not?  is it about a really really serious relationship or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
Click to expand...

lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  I believe in equal protection of the law, why don't You?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
Click to expand...

Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe.   Both situations are in the future.  And neither have any bearing on the conversation we are having.
> 
> 
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all you do.  I actually win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I claimed that you couldn't spell worth a damn and that your posts are grammatical nightmares, you would ask me to point those out.  Right?
> 
> Same with your pointless claims of fallacies.    I don't post fallacies, and you cannot point out where I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow.  i can say the same thing.  all you have is red herring and straw men, not valid arguments.
Click to expand...


Wow, it went right over your head, didn't it?  lol


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the conversation we are having, i am more honest and resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can point out specific fallacies I have posted, you are just making meaningless claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all you do.  I actually win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I claimed that you couldn't spell worth a damn and that your posts are grammatical nightmares, you would ask me to point those out.  Right?
> 
> Same with your pointless claims of fallacies.    I don't post fallacies, and you cannot point out where I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow.  i can say the same thing.  all you have is red herring and straw men, not valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, it went right over your head, didn't it?  lol
Click to expand...

no, it didn't.  all you have is stories, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about a serious relationship.    And most women want some very basic things from that relationship.   You cannot offer them.
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
Click to expand...


The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have the right to quit a job.   But when you do, you cease to be paid.   If you had a job that allowed to into restricted areas, and you quit, you would no longer be allowed in those restricted areas.    Your pay is the same.   Your pay is a direct result of your work.   No work?  No pay.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
Click to expand...


There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.

And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, women are not really really serious for free when the guy doesn't have enough money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
Click to expand...

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is compensation for being unemployed.  Why do You believe what You do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
Click to expand...

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just the having money.  It is being mature enough to do something for yourself and a future mate.   Not just sitting around waiting for someone else to do everything.
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
Click to expand...


And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are seeking another job.  It is to hold them over for a short time.   Welfare is long term payment for doing nothing.  And it is based on need.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
Click to expand...


No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.    

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is Your story.  i do more around the house than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
Click to expand...

...that is You, story teller.  

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that equal protection of the law?  Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
Click to expand...

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.
> 
> I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
Click to expand...


You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can.   But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment.    Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
Click to expand...


Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i can claim the same thing, hypocrite.  only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible.  you have no idea how much i do either.  you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
Click to expand...

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right.  There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
Click to expand...

How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life.  It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.
Click to expand...


You do?   Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "right" to unemployment compensation.    You don't have a right to other people's money.
> 
> And each state has its own separate unemployment system.   So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify.   Someone who quits their job does not qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lack of Things, not "true love for free".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do?   Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.
Click to expand...

I understand the law better than that.  you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do?   Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand the law better than that.  you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.
Click to expand...


Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.

The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place.   They do not rely on seeking employment ect.    That is what you want.

But you are, in fact, employed.    You claim you do housework and household chores.   For that you are paid room & board.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State.  We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
Click to expand...

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that is You, story teller.
> 
> I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do?   Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand the law better than that.  you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.
> 
> The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place.   They do not rely on seeking employment ect.    That is what you want.
> 
> But you are, in fact, employed.    You claim you do housework and household chores.   For that you are paid room & board.
Click to expand...

That is the political portion of it that needs to be dumped, (junk bonds not junk laws!), in favor of equal protection of the law for Labor as the least wealthy in our political-economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement to work.   None at all.
> 
> If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either.   If you don't need money, you are free to not work.   But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
Click to expand...


Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to consider whatever you like.   It is not based in reality.    In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do?   Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.   Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand the law better than that.  you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.
> 
> The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place.   They do not rely on seeking employment ect.    That is what you want.
> 
> But you are, in fact, employed.    You claim you do housework and household chores.   For that you are paid room & board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the political portion of it that needs to be dumped, (junk bonds not junk laws!), in favor of equal protection of the law for Labor as the least wealthy in our political-economy.
Click to expand...


There is nothing political about having to separate systems.  One for unemployment compensation and one for welfare for those who quit a job and are not looking for another one.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense.  Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?
> 
> come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.  

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation.   You can insist all you want.   But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
Click to expand...


Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work with equal protection of the law?  Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  See?  You just lost another one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Yeah, you just keep saying that.   Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.
> 
> Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?
> 
> 
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
Click to expand...

So, you believe in hell too?


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
Click to expand...

why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have, "under God" in our pledge.
> 
> 
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you believe in hell too?
Click to expand...

it comes from a Tome on Morals.  and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women.  Coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you refuse to actually debate.  You ask questions, that are answered.  Then refuse to answer any questions.   The arguments you make are mostly nonsense.   An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
Click to expand...

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  all you have is stories and fallacies.  ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
Click to expand...

we usually try to get along.


----------



## danielpalos

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
Click to expand...

i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.


----------



## Meathead

danielpalos said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.
Click to expand...

Happy ending?


----------



## danielpalos

Meathead said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy ending?
Click to expand...

...girlfriends can simply expect me to be a good boyfriend in modern times.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone.  And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.
> 
> Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
Click to expand...


And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That no one is required to say.0
> 
> 
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you believe in hell too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it comes from a Tome on Morals.  and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women.  Coincidence or conspiracy?
Click to expand...


A "Tome on Morals"?    LOL!!   It is obvious you have not read the Bible.     Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament.  So Hell is only for Christians.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
Click to expand...

lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you do.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.
> 
> Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.
> 
> xoxo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you believe in hell too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it comes from a Tome on Morals.  and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women.  Coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "Tome on Morals"?    LOL!!   It is obvious you have not read the Bible.     Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament.  So Hell is only for Christians.
Click to expand...

i know i don't have to take You seriously about morals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.    And the employee is protected as well.   You are allowed to quit.    You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for.    You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium.   That is offered even if you quit.
> 
> Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program.    It was never intended to be that.
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
Click to expand...


What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   YOu are really going to try to bring up morality?    The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??
> 
> While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.
> 
> 
> 
> that is just between me and you.  you have to go to hell before me.  so, why should i take you seriously now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you believe in hell too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it comes from a Tome on Morals.  and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women.  Coincidence or conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "Tome on Morals"?    LOL!!   It is obvious you have not read the Bible.     Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament.  So Hell is only for Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know i don't have to take You seriously about morals.
Click to expand...


Since this discussion is not about morality or religious beliefs, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.
> 
> The way and the means to pay for it is the only question.  Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
Click to expand...

nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law already exists.    You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid.   If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function.  Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
Click to expand...

they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it.   And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
Click to expand...


But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  stories are all they know how to manufacture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
Click to expand...

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.  

Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted was not a story.  It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
Click to expand...


When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.

If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.   

And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.    

No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but a fabricated story.  you know nothing about economics, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
Click to expand...

It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.

There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah    More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.
> 
> No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.
> 
> 
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
Click to expand...


Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.

Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?   

No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
Click to expand...

the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't more cost effective.  Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective.    And there will be determinations of need in both programs.
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
Click to expand...


Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.
> 
> Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment.   And the unemployment is for a set period of time.
> 
> If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.
> 
> And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that?    Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect.   YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes.   They do not necessarily verify it all.   In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so.    Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.
> 
> No, it is not cheaper.   No, it  is not more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
Click to expand...


Yes there is.   

One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.

The other is for people who need help to survive.


Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality.  Equal protection of the law means labor should be able to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> There would be no need for litigation.  That could save a lot of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor". 

I should not have to lie for Government services.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save money?    Some of the higher paying states pay $500 a week or more.  That is $26,000 per year per person.   The litigation is almost always fairly simply.   And labor litigation for a single case will not cost $26k.
> 
> Do you actually expect the federal and state governments to hand out checks, for thousands of people, without due diligence to make sure they are not being defrauded?
> 
> No Daniel, your pipedream will never become a reality.    Unemployment compensation is designed to help people bridge the gap from one job to another, when they lost their job through no fault of their own.    It is not to fund people who choose not to work and will survive without a paycheck.
> 
> 
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
Click to expand...


The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.   

Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.

Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.


What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.

You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.

One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.


----------



## WinterBorn

I have a simple question for you, Daniel.

Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the minimum wage will be going up to fifteen an hour.  a fourteen dollar equivalent for unemployment compensation is rational in any capital based economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.


i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.  

I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those who qualify.    Those who do not will either have to submits means testing or get a job making $15 an hour.    Or do without any lucre.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
Click to expand...


That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.

The means tests weed out those who do not need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
Click to expand...


Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.

And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between unemployment compensation and means tested welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
Click to expand...

You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.  

Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
Click to expand...

yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
Click to expand...


There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.

And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
Click to expand...


Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> One is a temporary compensation for a worker who lost their job through no fault of their own, and are actively looking for work.
> 
> The other is for people who need help to survive.
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't qualify for either, do you?   Not unless you lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
Click to expand...


Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?  

All you do is tell stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
Click to expand...

we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.  

equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
Click to expand...


But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is supposed to be, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  The right wing loves "shorting the Poor".
> 
> I should not have to lie for Government services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
Click to expand...

lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics. 

Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a simple question for you, Daniel.
> 
> Why don't you do what most people do and get a job to pay for what you want?      Answer this simple question and we can continue.
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
Click to expand...


YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.

And you have equal protection under the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
Click to expand...


And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not have to provide you services which you are capable of providing yourself.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is meant to be a temporary assist until you find a new job.  That is it.  It is not, and never was, intended to be full time support for someone unwilling to help themselves.
> 
> Unemployment compensation is, in most states, only 26 weeks in duration.    As I have said over and over, it is meant to be a temporary bridge between jobs.
> 
> 
> What you want is money sent to you, at tax payer expense, just because you do not have a job and refuse to get one.   That is what welfare is for.    The means testing you keep talking about is simply a way of determining whether you need it for your survival.   You obviously do not.
> 
> You want to change the entire system, for your benefit, so that you do not have to get a job and work for a living.   Unemployment compensation was never meant to provide you with a way of avoiding work and still having money for things beyond subsistence.   You want tax payers to pay for you to have things you do not need.
> 
> One of the key signs of maturity is differentiating between a want and a need.   You don't get to suckle at the public teat for your wants.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am looking for work as well.  i am looking for virtual positions online.
> 
> I am advocating for equal protection of the law not simply being a lemming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
Click to expand...

Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.   Solving for that Institutional problem is a Government function and a provision of the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
Click to expand...

playing tax cut economics is worse.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virtual positions are out there.   But there are also jobs that you could take that are not virtual.
> 
> And providing for your own wants and needs is not being a lemming.   It is being a productive adult.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
Click to expand...


I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is already a solution in the form of welfare programs.   However, that will not solve the homeless problem.   Not having a physical address means they cannot have their checks and other benefits sent to them.   Most do not have any ID, which is required to get any sort of gov't assistance.   And they don't have bank accounts they can put their checks into, which would mean they would have their entire month's assistance on their person on the streets.
> 
> And most homeless people, living on the streets, have some sort of history of mental problems or substance abuse.   Handing them money without addressing those problems would do more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
Click to expand...


Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is solved by the welfare programs.  They provide an income, food stamps and health insurance for those who need it.
> 
> The means tests weed out those who do not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> playing tax cut economics is worse.
Click to expand...


Not even close to relevant to what I said.    Poverty is not just about not having money.   There are programs to take care of those needs.   Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is, if i fail in my civil duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
Click to expand...

this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.



> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A solution for simple poverty on an at-will basis?
> 
> All you do is tell stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
Click to expand...

It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no economic clue or economic Cause, doing it that way.
> 
> Capitalism has a natural and institution, rate of unemployment.  Correcting for that simple problem can solve simple poverty.  We should have no homeless on the street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> playing tax cut economics is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close to relevant to what I said.    Poverty is not just about not having money.   There are programs to take care of those needs.   Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
Click to expand...

we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your civic duty is not to try to leech off other citizens who support themselves.  Being able to take care of yourself is one of the most basic civic duties.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.

And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
Click to expand...


As I said, welfare accomplishes that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the resources available for taking care of the poor is not unlimited.   The fact that you choose to be poor means you want to take resources that could be used to help people who cannot help themselves.   You take food and money away from them when you obviously do not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> playing tax cut economics is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close to relevant to what I said.    Poverty is not just about not having money.   There are programs to take care of those needs.   Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.
Click to expand...


Money is already being provided via welfare.  We need programs to provide people with what they need to provide for themselves.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a first amendment.  your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> equal protection of the law is express not implied in any way or any form of mere, story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not living in poverty.   You have a place to live, food on the table, and the lights are on.   You are not fighting for poor people.  If you were you would not be wanting to take resources that could be used to serve them.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
Click to expand...


You continue to move the goalposts.

First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.

When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  By solving for simple poverty we could raise tax revenue by simply raising the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> playing tax cut economics is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close to relevant to what I said.    Poverty is not just about not having money.   There are programs to take care of those needs.   Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is already being provided via welfare.  We need programs to provide people with what they need to provide for themselves.
Click to expand...

Programs only distort markets.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and better ensures, full employment of capital resources in our Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  only in right wing fantasy, does the right understand economics.
> 
> Capital _must_ circulate under capitalism to achieve the greatest capital efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
Click to expand...

dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur first amendment rights are intact.  You have the freedom to petition the gov't for a redress of your grievances.   That does not guarantee that your pipedream will come to pass.
> 
> And you have equal protection under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
Click to expand...


I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.

If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
Click to expand...


I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.

The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing tax revenue is only a minor part of the equation.    There also must be programs that do more than just hand out money.
> 
> 
> 
> playing tax cut economics is worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close to relevant to what I said.    Poverty is not just about not having money.   There are programs to take care of those needs.   Helping people to be able to take care of their own needs is what we need to work on as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't need, "programs", we need Money under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is already being provided via welfare.  We need programs to provide people with what they need to provide for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Programs only distort markets.  Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and better ensures, full employment of capital resources in our Republic.
Click to expand...


Distort markets?   You are just making shit up now.

Programs that provide job training, educational access, childcare, and other things that allow people to find employment do not distort markets.  They provide the ability for individuals to take care of themselves.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And capital will circulate without having people funds take, by force, by the gov't and passed on to you, despite the fact that you provide nothing in exchange for those funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.  It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
Click to expand...

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need it on the 2020 legislative agenda.  And, equal protection of the law is the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
Click to expand...

that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
Click to expand...

Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stories make no sense.  Simply being able to obtain unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means a boost in the positive multiplier effect in any given local economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
Click to expand...

it simply distorts normal market activity.  unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
Click to expand...

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee it will not be on the 2020 legislative agenda.    You want politicians to put forth the idea that the gov't sends money to people, with no effort to determine if they need it or not?   Never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
Click to expand...


I read quite well, thank you.

The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> 
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
Click to expand...


Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    Taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money being circulated.
> 
> 
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it simply distorts normal market activity.  unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.
Click to expand...


Welfare distorts normal market activity but unemployment compensation does not?    Bullshit.    Show a link.

No, it is not more cost effective.   Especially if you intend to expand it and make it long term.    And means testing, as I have explained, does not alter the efficiency of welfare.

It may not be enough?  Enough for what?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this needs to happen at the State level and we already have a federal doctrine that supports this position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
Click to expand...

That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
Click to expand...

i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is, correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment that is institutional not individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it simply distorts normal market activity.  unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare distorts normal market activity but unemployment compensation does not?    Bullshit.    Show a link.
> 
> No, it is not more cost effective.   Especially if you intend to expand it and make it long term.    And means testing, as I have explained, does not alter the efficiency of welfare.
> 
> It may not be enough?  Enough for what?
Click to expand...

Correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what, unemployment compensation does.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  You provided proof that there is equal protection under the law.   No where in that statement is anything that says you can quit a job and expect to continue to have an income.    You want an income?   Don't quit your job.
> 
> And there is no federal doctrine that says you get an income, for an unlimited time, by simply not having a job.   No Where.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.  that is equal protection of the law.  why not learn how to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
Click to expand...

I know how to read.

EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to move the goalposts.
> 
> First you say that benefits will provide a boost in a local economy.
> 
> When I point out that taking money from one person and giving it to another does not increase the money circulated, you go back to the claims that there needs to be an institutional solution.   There is an institutional solution.  Welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, welfare accomplishes that.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  that is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  It provides an income, food, and healthcare for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it simply distorts normal market activity.  unemployment compensation is more cost effective and means tested welfare will become a safety net for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money , may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare distorts normal market activity but unemployment compensation does not?    Bullshit.    Show a link.
> 
> No, it is not more cost effective.   Especially if you intend to expand it and make it long term.    And means testing, as I have explained, does not alter the efficiency of welfare.
> 
> It may not be enough?  Enough for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what, unemployment compensation does.
Click to expand...


Unemployment compensation is not enough to correct the natural rate of unemployment.  So about 4% of the working population needs welfare.   Getting them on unemployment only solves the problem for 26 weeks.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well.  Both employer and employees are protected.
> 
> If you quit, you deprive the employer of your services (for which you were paid).   And in turn, you no longer get paid since you no longer provide those services.
> 
> 
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Congrats.  So do I.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, you never understood the concepts and simply rely on stories and stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is why we have unemployment compensation.  learn how to read, huckleberry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
Click to expand...

I know what employment at the will of either party, means.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the concepts quite well.   There is not one story or stereotype in my posts.   Not one, and you cannot show me any.
> 
> The safety nets are for those who need them.  You do not need them, you want them.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
Click to expand...


You are the only one who brought up morals.

And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.
> 
> The gov't pays compensation if you lose your job through no fault of your own.  THAT is why we have unemployment compensation.    There are consequences for quitting a job.   You have no money.   You haveto live with the consequences of your own actions.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
Click to expand...


So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis is on the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one who brought up morals.
> 
> And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.
Click to expand...

Yes, i do.  the nine hundred ninety-nine should know their place.  

equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for actually being Unemployed.  

Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to more rational, economics.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what a federal doctrine or State laws say in at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
Click to expand...

Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving poverty is always on the agenda.    But you are not living in poverty.    You have all you need.
> 
> 
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one who brought up morals.
> 
> And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i do.  the nine hundred ninety-nine should know their place.
> 
> equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for actually being Unemployed.
> 
> Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to more rational, economics.
Click to expand...


No, if you want to be paid don't quit your job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  That is why they have basically the same rules from state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
Click to expand...


No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't believe you, individual Person.  Government has the authority over fixed Standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one who brought up morals.
> 
> And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i do.  the nine hundred ninety-nine should know their place.
> 
> equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for actually being Unemployed.
> 
> Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to more rational, economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you want to be paid don't quit your job.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.  Your bigotry is socially worthless and economically costly.  Stop whining about taxes, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how to read.
> 
> EDD should be required to find proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
Click to expand...

Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.


----------



## WinterBorn

You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.


nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense at all.    Yes, the gov't has the authority over fixed standards.   But by any gov't standard, you are not living in poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one who brought up morals.
> 
> And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i do.  the nine hundred ninety-nine should know their place.
> 
> equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for actually being Unemployed.
> 
> Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to more rational, economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you want to be paid don't quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.  Your bigotry is socially worthless and economically costly.  Stop whining about taxes, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Unemployment compensation was not designed to solve poverty.    And you know it.    Welfare is the safety net to keep the impoverished in what they need to live.

And I have not whined about taxes once.   I have talked about you wanting to soak the tax payers.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats.  So do I.
> 
> 
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
Click to expand...


No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).  

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, right winger.  The Standards are already fixed.  I don't need or want Your moralizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one who brought up morals.
> 
> And there is already equal protection under the law.   It just does not include you getting paid.   The employer no longer gets your services, why would you get paid?  That is not protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i do.  the nine hundred ninety-nine should know their place.
> 
> equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for actually being Unemployed.
> 
> Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to more rational, economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you want to be paid don't quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.  Your bigotry is socially worthless and economically costly.  Stop whining about taxes, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation was not designed to solve poverty.    And you know it.    Welfare is the safety net to keep the impoverished in what they need to live.
> 
> And I have not whined about taxes once.   I have talked about you wanting to soak the tax payers.
Click to expand...

no political solutions are.  all political talk is the best they can do.

equal protection of the law is the concept and paradigm.  



> All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what employment at the will of either party, means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
Click to expand...

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
Click to expand...

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
Click to expand...


I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So am I.    And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.
> 
> And I am just taking you at your word.    Your profile says you are 56.  You tell us you live with your Mom.   Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
Click to expand...


All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.    And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation.   If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation.  YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


Once again, no it is not.   But there are consequences for it nonetheless.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> still too chicken to get to know me and my mom?  xoxo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?
Click to expand...

Anyone who is, "naturally unemployed by Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States", has standing.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply a bigot.  it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
Click to expand...

only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause?  Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no it is not.   But there are consequences for it nonetheless.
Click to expand...

that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
Click to expand...


First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
Click to expand...

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no cause necessary.    But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no it is not.   But there are consequences for it nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.
Click to expand...


The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor.  The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages.    The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.


All it said was that you can be fired for cause.  I did not say cause was required.   But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did.  It is part of the record of your misdeeds.    In other words, keep your nose clean.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you go to jail.  Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party.  Equal protection of the law is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no it is not.   But there are consequences for it nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor.  The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages.    The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.
> 
> 
> All it said was that you can be fired for cause.  I did not say cause was required.   But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did.  It is part of the record of your misdeeds.    In other words, keep your nose clean.
Click to expand...

you simply understand none of the economic concepts.  why do you believe that form of wage-slavery, doesn't put a downward pressure on wages to "third world or less" equilibrium?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason.  You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it.    And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford.    You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities.   You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not only if you go to jail.  If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause.   If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause.  If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause.   If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.
> 
> 
> 
> no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, no it is not.   But there are consequences for it nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor.  The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages.    The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.
> 
> 
> All it said was that you can be fired for cause.  I did not say cause was required.   But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did.  It is part of the record of your misdeeds.    In other words, keep your nose clean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand none of the economic concepts.  why do you believe that form of wage-slavery, doesn't put a downward pressure on wages to "third world or less" equilibrium?
Click to expand...



You have shown a real disdain for the working class people.

I don't believe in wage slavery.   But I do believe you have to have some skills to be worth more money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  you don't understand the simplest concepts.  you merely stereotype and make up stories.
> 
> simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
Click to expand...

A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."

Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).
> 
> Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything.    The welfare system is well streamlined.  The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient.   The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets.  Thats it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
Click to expand...


Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.

Why didn't you?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.
> 
> For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.
> 
> If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker.   You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...lousy female intuition?  How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did you reach that conclusion?  i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees.  right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan.  i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is, "naturally unemployed by Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States", has standing.
Click to expand...

Your argument with him, you must of lost.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic.   Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.
> 
> Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?
> 
> 
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
Click to expand...

trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?  

i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.  

and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?

Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't know.  not everyone has the same circumstances available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.
Click to expand...

only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.
> 
> Second of all, they can't get unemployent.
> 
> Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos.  My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX.  I don't have a job."   and they will just send you a check???
> 
> 
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
Click to expand...


The "too little capital" is the main point.

People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.

The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.
> 
> Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
Click to expand...

Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn

There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.

If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?

And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    Have you priced private insurance lately?    When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife.   The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week.   Good luck making that $500 last you the month.
> 
> I do not have a problem solving simple poverty.   Nothing you have suggested would do that.    It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud.   Which would mean it cost more and did less.
> 
> 
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.


Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment. 

And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?  

It should be a boon to Any local economy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.
Click to expand...


999%? lol, you don't have to prove you are a moron, we all know that you are.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
Click to expand...


Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.


----------



## Papageorgio

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple problem if i live at home with my mom.   I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."
> 
> Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
Click to expand...


Good luck with that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market.    If you had the money to start.
> 
> Why didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...


The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.

I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.

When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.


----------



## Papageorgio

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.



Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could say that.  it certainly isn't average.
> 
> but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 999%? lol, you don't have to prove you are a moron, we all know that you are.
Click to expand...

you need more than fallacy to do it with.  i resort to the fewest.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?
> 
> i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.
> 
> and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?
> 
> Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry?  There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around.  We already know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

the employer has no say in employment at-will.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.


You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
Click to expand...

all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.
Click to expand...


Which has nothing to do with what I posted.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...

under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "too little capital" is the main point.
> 
> People pursue happiness in many different ways.    For some, their work is a source of happiness.   For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.
> 
> The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone.     The standard relationship is employer/employee.   The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer.     If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income.  The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer has no say in employment at-will.
Click to expand...


That is your story.   The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state.    They can fire you for any reason or no reason.   However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.
Click to expand...


Then you have your wish.  The IS equal protection under the law.   YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job.   Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things.   Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats Winterborn, great story how hard work, a great work ethic and applying yourself paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all the Richest had to do was lie to their shareholders to get a bailout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which has nothing to do with what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


Your reply had nothing to do with what he posted under any economic system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism being denied and disparaged equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?
> 
> There can be no repugnancy to express State laws or a federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer has no say in employment at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your story.   The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state.    They can fire you for any reason or no reason.   However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have your wish.  The IS equal protection under the law.   YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job.   Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things.   Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another dire consequence for you getting what you want.
> 
> If, as you say, the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.   And, as you have said, the unemployment compensation for simply not having a job sets the rate at $14 an hour.  The 40 hour work week would pay $600.    Quitting and collecting this magical unemployment you want would pay $560.    How many people would continue to work?
> 
> And with the massive drop in available workforce, coupled with the massive uptick in money being paid out by the gov't, the entire economy would collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
Click to expand...


I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No repugnancy to express state laws or federal doctrine?   You'll have to clarify what you mean by that.
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer has no say in employment at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your story.   The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state.    They can fire you for any reason or no reason.   However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


Equal protection means you can quit on that same and equal basis.   That is it.

Why did you quit your last job?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have your wish.  The IS equal protection under the law.   YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job.   Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things.   Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.
Click to expand...


The protection is equal.   No one said you had to get paid.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we subscribe to Capitalism or not?  There is no unemployment under Capitalism, only underpayment.
> 
> And, why should local economies care if more local people have more money to spend locally?
> 
> It should be a boon to Any local economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
Click to expand...

You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the employer has no say in employment at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your story.   The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state.    They can fire you for any reason or no reason.   However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection means you can quit on that same and equal basis.   That is it.
> 
> Why did you quit your last job?
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of State law and a federal doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have your wish.  The IS equal protection under the law.   YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job.   Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things.   Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection is equal.   No one said you had to get paid.
Click to expand...

EDD should have to prove for-cause employment in an at-will employment State to deny or disparage benefits.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, having more money to spend is a boon to any economy.     But taking money from the wage earner and giving it to someone who does not work does not increase the money to spend.  In fact, since the operation that redistributes the money requires money to function, there is a net loss in money to be spent.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
Click to expand...


My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.

You have claimed that unemployment compensation is more efficient than welfare.   Unemployment checks every claim, while welfare checks 10% or less.  Unemployment requires forms from you and information from your former employer.  Welfare just has you fill out forms.   Again, laughably ignorant.

And you claim that having the money earned by one and then given to another helps the economy more, despite the fact that some of the money is used in the distribution, so there is less actual money available.   Again, laughably ignorant.

Be careful who you call ignorant.    Having someone you claim is ignorant run rings around doesn't look good.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The employer does not collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> the employer has no say in employment at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your story.   The reality is, employers have total say in an at-will state.    They can fire you for any reason or no reason.   However, there are very few employers who will fire a good employee for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can also quit on that same and equal basis, and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection means you can quit on that same and equal basis.   That is it.
> 
> Why did you quit your last job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignorant of State law and a federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


Not at all.    And you have offered no evidence other than your vague insistence.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you have made it clear that you do not see the point in working, if you can get a minimum amount of money another way.
> 
> I will tell you why that is a failure of an idea.
> 
> When I started in the utility construction industry, I was barely getting by.   And the work was brutal.   But there was a future in it.   My starting pay was 20% of the weekly net.  The lineman got 80%.    He had all the skills and I was just muscle and learning.   But I learned and got a raise to 30%.   Then to 40%.   Each pay raise he gave me cut into what he made.   But as I got better we got more done, so we were making more.    When he gave me the raise to 50% he hired another guy to learn to be a groundhand.   After 6 months, he bought another bucket truck and I was a lineman.  I got the experienced groundhand and he hired another new one.   I made good money with that crew.    And that was 20 years ago.   Since then I have worked my way up to the corporate safety director.   I went from making $18k to $20k a year to a six figure salary with bonuses, benefits, and stock options.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stories, story teller.  Equal protection of the law is what I am advocating for, that is moral not immoral like the moral turpitude of willful blindness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have your wish.  The IS equal protection under the law.   YOu just don't get paid after you quit a job.   Getting paid after quitting a job and equal protection under the law are two very different things.   Why would the law force an employer to pay you after you quit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, not your story, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection is equal.   No one said you had to get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EDD should have to prove for-cause employment in an at-will employment State to deny or disparage benefits.
Click to expand...


Prove for-cause employment?

Don't you mean prove for-cause unemployment?    And actually, they do have to prove that you were fired for cause.   That is why many employers don't bother.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, why won't you answer my question?    Why did you quit your last job?

Are you afraid it will make you look bad and/or prove my case?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Any taxes are a form of income redistribution.  providing for the welfare General is Good and not Bad.  It says so in our supreme law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
Click to expand...

lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories. 

All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Taxes are to fund the gov't.    Some of that is for various programs that provide a safety net ect.    But redistribution of income is not the point of taxation.   And providing for general welfare is not the same as giving someone money when they do not qualify for welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
Click to expand...


The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, especially when the right wing whines about taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
Click to expand...

Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered no excuses.  I simply corrected your misconception of taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
Click to expand...


In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.  Why should I take You seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ignorance?    LOL!!   YOu have claimed that all taxation is income redistribution.   That is laughably ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?

I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  yes, Your ignorance.  Anyone can tell stories.
> 
> All taxation is income redistribution.  Explain how it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
Click to expand...


Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense. 

You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The overwhelming majority of all taxes go to the DoD.   Much of that is for equipment and maintenance of equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
Click to expand...


Your definition is different from most discussing economics.  

But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.    

And ask again, why did you quit your job?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
> 
> But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Click to expand...

lol.  you simply make up stories.  no discussion of economics claim what You do.  ignorance is all You have.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?  Income redistribution is taking money from someone to give it to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
Click to expand...

Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
> 
> But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories.  no discussion of economics claim what You do.  ignorance is all You have.
Click to expand...


No, I am simply not interested in your sidestepping the topic again.  

I listed 3 examples of your ignorançe.   We'll agree to disagree on one.  The other 2 are correct.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In economic terms, it is not paying vendors or even workers.   Income redistribution is giving the money to someone, like welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
Click to expand...


Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
> 
> But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories.  no discussion of economics claim what You do.  ignorance is all You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am simply not interested in your sidestepping the topic again.
> 
> I listed 3 examples of your ignorançe.   We'll agree to disagree on one.  The other 2 are correct.
Click to expand...

You have no argument.  You are simply Wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  You simply make up stories. Taxation is wealth redistribution via the coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition is different from most discussing economics.
> 
> But, since arguing semantics is a waste of time, I'll concede this one and leave the other two examples of your ignorance.
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories.  no discussion of economics claim what You do.  ignorance is all You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am simply not interested in your sidestepping the topic again.
> 
> I listed 3 examples of your ignorançe.   We'll agree to disagree on one.  The other 2 are correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  You are simply Wrong.
Click to expand...


Just because you say so?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.   So taking taxes and buying tanks is redistributing money from the tax payer to the people who sell tanks?
> 
> I guess my giving my kid allowance would be income redistributing.    Hell, spending the income at the grocery store would be the same thing.    Or even putting it in a savings account, since the bank then loans it out is income redistribution, by your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
Click to expand...


No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it goes from Individuals to the treasury to be redistributed for the general welfare and common defense.
> 
> You need to understand the concepts better.  It is too hot to be as slow as molasses on a cold winter day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
Click to expand...

That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ask again, why did you quit your job?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.  

You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.


----------



## WinterBorn

Also, every employer provides you with some sort of training and experience.   And they pay you.   So when you quit, you take that experience and training with you.  You are more qualified for more and better jobs.   The employer is left with a new trainee.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at-will not wage-slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
Click to expand...

If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you a slave?   You volunteered and went to some effort to get the job.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...


Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.

The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, not Only the employer for unemployment compensation benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have control too.  Don't quit and don't give them reason to fire you for cause.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
Click to expand...


It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.    

Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.

from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
"If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."

So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.


And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not, employment at the will of either party.  Why so much "expensive regulation", right wingers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
Click to expand...

all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.

What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You have the option of quitting.   Find another job first and then quit.
> 
> You are not a slave.   Slaves  don't have choices.   But that does not mean you continue to get paid.  Nor does it mean we should revamp an entire system to turn it into one that already exists.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
Click to expand...


I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.

That is simply parasitic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can quit you should be able to collect unemployment benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
Click to expand...

beats your plan.  which is Nothing. 

Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?   You left of your own free will.   If you wanted the money you should have stayed until you found something else.
> 
> The employer lost a worker and you lost a paycheck.   The employer can't force you to stay and you can't force them to pay you.   Equality under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.

I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.

Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  Employment is at-will not for-cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
Click to expand...

Government is Socialism?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
Click to expand...


Have I said anything of the sort?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is both.  They are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Employment is at-will under most circumstances.     Both the employer and the employee are free to end the relationship at any time.
> 
> Employment is for-cause in fewer cases, but is equally important.    For the employer, it is important that you are not stuck with an employees who violates the law or company policies.   And to be able to deny employee compensation benefits, if they were fired for-cause, is important for financial reasons.
> 
> from:  What Happens When Former Workers File Unemployment Claims?
> "If former employees file for unemployment insurance, you will (indirectly) be the one footing the bill. Benefit payments are charged to your employer tax account, which results in increased state tax rates. The more unemployment claims the state approves, the more you will contribute for unemployment taxes."
> 
> So expecting an employer to pay more taxes when you, as the employee, violated the law or company policy, is insane.
> 
> 
> And, as an employee, you can fight against being treated illegally, such as denying overtime or discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
Click to expand...


Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all of theses posts and you still don't understand the concepts.
> 
> What you are describing is a result of our current regime.  I am advocating changing our current regime from an employer function to a purely State function.  Employers would no longer have to maintain unemployment compensation accounts or deal with those issues.  Anyone unemployed would simply go to a State office for unemployment benefits.  Taxes would be general not direct on employers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
Click to expand...

Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> 
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
Click to expand...


So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you want.  You want to be able to walk into the unemployment office and say "I don't have a job" and have them send you a checks for $560 a week, indefinitely, no questions asked.   No oversight to prevent fraud.   And no requirement to show whether you need it.  Just checks because you want it.
> 
> That is simply parasitic.
> 
> 
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
Click to expand...


Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
Click to expand...

How much capital are the homeless circulating?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> beats your plan.  which is Nothing.
> 
> Why do you believe circulating capital in our market based economy is "parasitic"? We have a First Amendment, your morals mean Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
Click to expand...


I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am quite aware of the First Amendment.    And I fully support it.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Please point out which part of the First Amendment you claim I am against.
> 
> I have never said circulating capital in our market based economy is parasitic.     I simply said that living off the labors of other for what you want and not what you need is parasitic.    Obviously you don't need money.   You have all your needs met by living with your mother.    You simply want money without having to do anything to earn it.    Since that money must come from someone who earns it, it is parasitic.
> 
> Why do you think that unless money is taken from one person and given to another it will not circulate?  The capital will circulate fine without handing freebie out to those who do not need them.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> 
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will capital circulate without having it taken from one and given to another?
> 
> 
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
Click to expand...


No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
Click to expand...

lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not with our current inequality.  The point is we need an Institutional upward pressure on wages not our current regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
Click to expand...

You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So people earn wages and then do not circulate the capital?     What do they do with it?    I think the days of stuffing money into mattresses are gone.
> 
> 
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
Click to expand...


That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.

Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure for higher wages is an entirely different topic.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.    But you are ignoring the point of our conversation.  We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare.   The higher wages is not part of that conversation.    Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?

In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves.   You earn more so you spend more.  When you spend more your lifestyle changes.   Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much capital are the homeless circulating?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
Click to expand...

Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.    But you are ignoring the point of our conversation.  We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare.   The higher wages is not part of that conversation.    Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?
> 
> In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves.   You earn more so you spend more.  When you spend more your lifestyle changes.   Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.
Click to expand...

We would be worse off, without our freeway system.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said everyone was part of circulating capital.     But your claims that capital will not circulate unless it is taken from one and given to another is absolutely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
Click to expand...


And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.    Higher wages would not change the unemployment compensation laws at all.   And your claims about being a "wage slave" would be the same.  You would just have higher wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.    But you are ignoring the point of our conversation.  We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare.   The higher wages is not part of that conversation.    Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?
> 
> In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves.   You earn more so you spend more.  When you spend more your lifestyle changes.   Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would be worse off, without our freeway system.
Click to expand...


"Freeway system"?     Now it is about roads?


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.

And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Why do you believe it is?  If what You claimed were true, we would not need Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
Click to expand...

Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation will engender an upward pressure on wages.  Wages should always beat inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.    But you are ignoring the point of our conversation.  We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare.   The higher wages is not part of that conversation.    Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?
> 
> In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves.   You earn more so you spend more.  When you spend more your lifestyle changes.   Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would be worse off, without our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Freeway system"?     Now it is about roads?
Click to expand...

LOL.  You understand Nothing.  

It is about the socialism of Government taking money for the public good.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.


You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics. 

Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    Again, without taking capital away from someone, you are claiming it will not circulate.    What do those who earn it do with the capital?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
Click to expand...


No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.

Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.

We have a safety net for those who need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will not.    Causing employers to have to spend more on taxes, due to more claims, will not help them to pay higher wages.
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.    But you are ignoring the point of our conversation.  We are talking about turning unemployment compensation into unregulated welfare.   The higher wages is not part of that conversation.    Would you have stayed on at your last job if you were paid more?
> 
> In fact, I would submit that it would create MORE wage slaves.   You earn more so you spend more.  When you spend more your lifestyle changes.   Now you HAVE to work more to maintain that lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We would be worse off, without our freeway system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Freeway system"?     Now it is about roads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  You understand Nothing.
> 
> It is about the socialism of Government taking money for the public good.
Click to expand...


Au contraire, I do understand.    And I am fully in favor of the use of welfare to take care of those who need it.

But you don't need it, you want it.   There is a difference.   You are selfish.  You want to change the entire system to suit your very special circumstances.  That is all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
Click to expand...


Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.

Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.

The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it would not circulate to solve simple poverty, just like our freeway system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
Click to expand...

it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what you have been saying.  You have been saying that capital must circulate and that the circulation of capital is good for the economy.    Those have been 2 main reasons you used to advocate for turning unemployment compensation into welfare without oversight.
> 
> Simple question.   Does capital circulate without being taken from one and given to someone who did not earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.

I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
Click to expand...


No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.

It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism not labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
Click to expand...

lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And capital does circulate under capitalism.   Without taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to someone who didn't.    I am all for having a safety net for those who need help.    But I am against paying someone who wants money but does not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, you keep bringing up the homeless.    As I have explained, your fantasy unemployment compensation would not help them.
> 
> And you bring up the poor and solving simple poverty.   This line of conversation started because you want to change the unemployment compensation system to help YOU get money.   The means test will not disqualify those trapped in simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
Click to expand...


It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.

You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that?  Employment is at-will.  You don't have to work.  Merely complaining about it means you don't have enough morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
Click to expand...

lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have explained nothing.  And, what you did explain was just plain Wrong.  Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Correcting for Capitalism's not socialism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't have to work.   But if you don't work you don't get paid.   In about 3 years I will retire.  I won't have to work because I worked for 45 years and made sure I saved for my retirement.
> 
> Morals?  You keep talking about morals.  One minute demeaning mine, the next talking smack about morality.  These laws we have are logical and reasonable.
> 
> We have a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> 
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
Click to expand...


True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?

Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.

There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.

As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did explain.   You claim to want the changes in the unemployment compensation to help the homeless.
> 
> Where do they mail the checks?    What do the homeless do with the checks?  They have no ID to cash them and no bank account.   And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour.   That is $560 a week before taxes.   The federal tax would be 12%.  In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5.   That means every week these homeless people will be given $470.   No bank account.  No place to live.   How many will be robbed and probably hurt?  Let me rephrase that to make it easier.   How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt?  Damned few I would be.   Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems?    No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs.   Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems?   Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash?   You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you.  But I guarantee they are dead accurate.  I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine".    That is blind ignorance.
> 
> The natural rate of unemployment is served best by the current welfare system.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
Click to expand...


It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?

Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it takes morals to solve problems. Faithful execution of our own laws, is moral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
Click to expand...

How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Solving for Capitalism's not Labor's natural rate of unemployment is best.  Means tested welfare should be for those for whom solving for mere lucre, may not be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is moral.   Many people follow the laws to avoid prosecution.
> 
> I am all for solving problems.   But revamping an entire system to suit your own unique situation is not solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
Click to expand...


How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, means tested welfare is simply assuring that the resources go to those who need them.    Not someone who just needs lucre to take women out to dinner.
> 
> It is the responsibility or duty for society to make sure everyone has a place to sleep, food, and access to resources to survive.   You have all of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  i am advocating correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
Click to expand...

are you employed or not?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is more cost effective.  Some people would rather use that than go on more expensive, means tested welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.


----------



## B. Kidd

Wow!
79 pages of posts that amount to basically discussing 'jerk-offs'.
Just, Wow!!


----------



## danielpalos

B. Kidd said:


> Wow!
> 79 pages of posts that amount to basically discussing 'jerk-offs'.
> Just, Wow!!


I offer free full body massage with Happy ending for women who are willing to be, girls and friends, at the same time.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, other than the homeless problem, it is being corrected by welfare.   People in the US who have no income and no job can get the help they need via welfare.  The means testing insures a minimal amount of fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you employed or not?
Click to expand...


I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not more efficient.   You keep claiming that it is, but offer no evidence to show the truth of your assertions.
> 
> You want to remove the main method of stopping fraud.   It is not a waste of resources.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
Click to expand...


It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  No, it isn't.  Welfare is means tested not employment tested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you employed or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
Click to expand...

so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed must be more cost effective as an economic program, not a political program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
Click to expand...

solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 79 pages of posts that amount to basically discussing 'jerk-offs'.
> Just, Wow!!
> 
> 
> 
> I offer free full body massage with Happy ending for women who are willing to be, girls and friends, at the same time.
Click to expand...


But unless they allow you access to their bodies, you will not be their friend. (or so you said)


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  And it should be.   If you have $1 million in the bank and live off the interest, you are unemployed.   Should tax dollars be given to you?
> 
> Tax money is given to people who need it.   You do not.
> 
> There will never be a day that the gov't, federal or state, gives you money without you having to show a need.
> 
> As I have said numerous times, for any of the social welfare benefits, *YOU fill out some forms.*   Fewer than 10% are actually checked.   That is not inefficient.     For unemployment, you fill out forms, your employer fills out forms, and the state fills out forms.
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you employed or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
Click to expand...


Because they will send you a check.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must?   Why?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> Unemployment compensation is far more inefficient than welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
Click to expand...


Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many people are going to ask for unemployment compensation if they don't need it?  Typically, you need to be unemployed.  Most of the Poor, will will be able to participate in our markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you employed or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
Click to expand...

and?  does labor have an actual right to work even in alleged, Right to Work States?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
Click to expand...

We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many will apply for unemployment compensation if no questions are asked?
> 
> 
> 
> are you employed or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
Click to expand...


You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.

Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that.   Unemployment compensation must verify each and every case.   Welfare may verify 10% or less.   And the information gathered for welfare comes from the person applying.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.

The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
"Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.

And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!

And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.

Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you employed or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
Click to expand...

It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
Click to expand...

You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation solves for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  Most participants will self-select.  There is no way, means testing can be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
Click to expand...

You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a great job, thanks for asking.   And an occasional part-time job I love doing.
> 
> 
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
Click to expand...


Is it?   How easy is it?   

Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more efficient for 2 reasons:
> 1) The means testing is mostly forms filled out by the applicant.  It uses almost no resources.
> 2) The means testing helps prevent fraud, which wastes resources and produces a large inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
Click to expand...


Completely irrelevant.

If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.


Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, why would You apply for unemployment compensation for being allegedly, unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
Click to expand...

Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
Click to expand...

You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
Click to expand...

i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is economic, not political.  there is no way, means testing based on politics, can ever be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
Click to expand...

There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


I've seen it referenced a lot, don't know much about "the movement". Is it actually a movement, or just a bunch of socially akward young men venting on the internet?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they will send you a check.
> 
> 
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
Click to expand...


Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
Click to expand...


Not without a state ID.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is a safety net.    Whether you want to call it "solving for capitalism's natural rate of employment" or poverty.    And it is a safety net based on need.   You don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
Click to expand...


Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and?  "does labor ha even in alleged, Right to Work States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
Click to expand...

Only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
Click to expand...

Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

They hold onto it for personal pickup.  

They also should issue State ids.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no people on the street if they could be getting unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked why someone would apply for unemployment compensation.   I gave you a legitimate answer.
> 
> Now you switch to "does labor have an actual right to work..."???
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than just ignore it or make vague accusations of me posting fallacies or telling stories, try to address what I actually said.  I mean, if you can.
> 
> The reason unemployment compensation will not work against homelessness is:
> "Where do they mail the checks? What do the homeless do with the checks? They have no ID to cash them and no bank account. And if they do manage to cash them, what you want is the equivalent of $14 an hour. That is $560 a week before taxes. The federal tax would be 12%. In Georgia, the state tax would be 4% or %5. That means every week these homeless people will be given $470. No bank account. No place to live. How many will be robbed and probably hurt? Let me rephrase that to make it easier. How many WON'T be robbed and probably hurt? Damned few I would be. Especially when word got out that the homeless were getting $470 a week.
> 
> And what about the ones who have substance abuse problems? No help for their addictions, but here is $470 a week you can use to buy booze or drugs. Good luck!!!
> 
> And what about those with mental problems? Do you think they are ready to deal with having a little over $2k a month in cash? You would be creating another set of victims.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend that my explanations are wrong, that is on you. But I guarantee they are dead accurate. I have spent too much time volunteering in soup kitchens to be told "If we just send them a check they will be fine". That is blind ignorance."
> 
> 
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
Click to expand...


They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
Click to expand...


See my previous post.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.    I gave you the reasons why just offering a check will not work.    If you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.   But you need to either address the post I gave you or admit that unemployment compensation will not solve homelessness.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
Click to expand...


Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.


----------



## WinterBorn

The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.

But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.

You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.

The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to check if you are already working.  If you are unemployed, you could be going to school or learning a trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.
Click to expand...

you miss the point.  with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would not believe how market friendly people can be, when they have an income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
Click to expand...

it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no argument.  People just need capital under capitalism and capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
Click to expand...

why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."


Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?   How easy is it?
> 
> Yes, you could be in school or learning a trade.   But the biggest point is do you *need* the money?   If someone is supporting you and you have grants or scholarships for school, you don't *need* the money.  You want the money.     Access to the public dole is not a guaranteed right.
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with your comment of "Only illegals don't care about the law."

But I will say, if people *OPT* to not work, they don't get paid.   That is pretty simple.    People with children present a different set of problems, and they will always receive the benefits of social programs.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk perjury for less than the minimum wage to work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with your comment of "Only illegals don't care about the law."
> 
> But I will say, if people *OPT* to not work, they don't get paid.   That is pretty simple.    People with children present a different set of problems, and they will always receive the benefits of social programs.
Click to expand...

they aren't Getting Paid to work, they are getting Compensated for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  There is a difference.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant.
> 
> If you are going to continue to tout the benefits of unemployment compensation in the fight against homelessness, answer these questions.
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID?   No address means no ID.  Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get?   Cash in their pocket?  No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month?  Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> Unless you can answer those questions, your claims of being market friendly or that unemployment compensation is the solution, are just so much nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
Click to expand...


Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
Click to expand...


And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you ignore my argument does not mean it is not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
Click to expand...


Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
Click to expand...


Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk prison for a few hundred buck?    People do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with your comment of "Only illegals don't care about the law."
> 
> But I will say, if people *OPT* to not work, they don't get paid.   That is pretty simple.    People with children present a different set of problems, and they will always receive the benefits of social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they aren't Getting Paid to work, they are getting Compensated for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  There is a difference.
Click to expand...


People who opt out of working are the natural rate of employment???     Ok, that is much simpler to solve.   If you choose not to work, you are also choosing not to get paid.   Your bad choices do not warrant access to tax dollars.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are check cashing places and banks should be happy to open an account for a person who will have a consistent income for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
Click to expand...

simplification is less expensive.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories.  Anyone who is homeless should be able to go to EDD and state so, and obtain compensation for Capitalism not Labor's or an Individual's, natural rate of unemployment.  You cannot blame the Individual in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
Click to expand...

some places can do it for free.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   Right.  No American citizens commit robberies, extortion or fraud.    That is hilarious.   This may be your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  with so many people opting to not work, getting work should be easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with your comment of "Only illegals don't care about the law."
> 
> But I will say, if people *OPT* to not work, they don't get paid.   That is pretty simple.    People with children present a different set of problems, and they will always receive the benefits of social programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they aren't Getting Paid to work, they are getting Compensated for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  There is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who opt out of working are the natural rate of employment???     Ok, that is much simpler to solve.   If you choose not to work, you are also choosing not to get paid.   Your bad choices do not warrant access to tax dollars.
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party, for unemployment compensation.  that is equality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i ignore nothing but red herrings and straw men and other forms of fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
Click to expand...

why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.
Click to expand...

lol.  that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not without a state ID.
> 
> 
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
Click to expand...


Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me which of the following is a red herring or other fallacy:
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
Click to expand...


Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.
Click to expand...


Those programs provide what the poor actually need.    Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs.   It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
Click to expand...


It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.

You know someone who would do that for free?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calfironia EDD should be able to issue State id. cards and hold checks for people who have no fixed address, until they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
Click to expand...

lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under Capitalism.  Your alleged morals mean Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
Click to expand...

why do we have any homeless?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those programs provide what the poor actually need.    Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs.   It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.
Click to expand...

an income is helpful under capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hold onto it for personal pickup.
> 
> They also should issue State ids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
Click to expand...

anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't.   And I see no reason they will.    So you will have to change yet another system to make your nonsense work.
> 
> 
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
Click to expand...


Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?

The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.

I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital already circulates, and nothing you have said shows any different.
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
Click to expand...


There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, Daniel, that you make it sound like you are wanting all of this for altruistic reasons.    Help the poor, solve homelessness, solve the problem of the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> But all of those have simpler, more efficient solution in existing programs.
> 
> You just want a way to get money without having to actually work.   You don't need the money.  Your needs are taken care of by you living with your mother.  You are not homeless.  You are not hungry.   You are not out in the cold.    You just want money to play.   Social services and state programs should never be used for that.
> 
> The proof of what I say?   Your own words.    "I am still working on generating some income so i can take women to dinner."
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those programs provide what the poor actually need.    Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs.   It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> an income is helpful under capitalism.
Click to expand...


Sure it is.  I'm also sure it is helpful if you want to take women out to dinner.    But $470 a week does not pay rent, utilities, transportation costs, buy food and pay for healthcare.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?


Never heard of it. Don't know anyone like that either. Even the ugliest people I know all have wives or husbands or girlfriend/boyfriend. 

Sounds like internet nonsense to me


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
Click to expand...


Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
Click to expand...


And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can easily be done.  there is no need for excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
Click to expand...

lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any homeless if not for capital not circulating?  it is self-evident, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is the goal.  That must engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  That is all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is best left to programs designed for such things, like welfare, food stamps, gov't subsidized housing ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is complicated poverty not simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those programs provide what the poor actually need.    Giving them a check for $470 does not provide for all their needs.   It might provide for all your wants, and that is why you think it is best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> an income is helpful under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  I'm also sure it is helpful if you want to take women out to dinner.    But $470 a week does not pay rent, utilities, transportation costs, buy food and pay for healthcare.
Click to expand...

it does cover some costs.  a roommate may be necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
Click to expand...

they could receive their checks in the mail, there.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about.  besides, a third party could do it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
Click to expand...

to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easily?    All we have to do is completely rework the requirements and conditions for unemployment compensation, allow for massive fraud, revamp the entire state ID system, and to make the social agencies (and the unemployment offices) responsible for holding checks worth tens of thousands of dollars.
> 
> Or, we could leave the systems we have in place and let them do what they are designed to do, and come up with more viable answer to the homeless problem.
> 
> 
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
Click to expand...


Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the capital circulates very well.     Or can you finally answer my question of why you think it doesn't circulate if left in the hands of those who earned it?
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...


So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
Click to expand...


They could?

Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
"*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*

first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.   

Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And up to a third of the resources available would be used to pay the third party.    Now for someone like you who only wants money for fun, that might not be an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
Click to expand...


The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.

Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.

Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simplification is less expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
Click to expand...

some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any social services at all, if capital circulates so well under capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
Click to expand...

means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
Click to expand...

your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some places can do it for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.


----------



## beautress

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.
Click to expand...


"They can't get laid...."​Maybe they can't bring themselves to ask a girl to marry them for which they would receive a lifetime of bliss rather than a one-night stand which leaves them with nothing permanent to look forward to.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, your reply is certainly simple.    But inaccurate.    Nothing you have said or shown gives any indication that unemployment compensation is less expensive, nor that all the reworking of systems simplifies anything.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.
Click to expand...


I thought you said they "opted out" of working?

Merely unemployed?   Through no fault of their own?   Great!   They can collect unemployment compensation for around 6 months.   More if unemployment is high.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social services are not to circulate capital.  They are meant to provide a safety net for those who need it.
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
Click to expand...


Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> 
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
Click to expand...


No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would require a place to setup, which means having power, water, sewer, garbage pickup, phone lines, furniture and security.    Then it would require having at least a dozen people to handle all the administrative tasks.   And administrative costs would include numerous things such as bulk paper, copiers, notepads, pens, and the like.   You would also need quite a few secure computers to take care of the various tasks.  And lastly, a method of printing the checks.
> 
> You know someone who would do that for free?
> 
> 
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
Click to expand...


And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.


----------



## beautress

westwall said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
Click to expand...


Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you simply understand nothing.  unemployment compensation must be less expensive than Any form of means testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said they "opted out" of working?
> 
> Merely unemployed?   Through no fault of their own?   Great!   They can collect unemployment compensation for around 6 months.   More if unemployment is high.
Click to expand...

The law is employment at the will of either party, not limited by the State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do we have any homeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
Click to expand...

In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
Click to expand...

Government must have solutions not excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody with an income can setup at mail boxes etcetera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
Click to expand...

The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must it be?   Because you want it to be?
> 
> The means testing is only verified in 10% of the cases or less.   That means 90% or more are simply requiring the applicant to fill out forms.   That costs little to nothing.
> 
> I understand that you are happy to lie and slant things towards what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said they "opted out" of working?
> 
> Merely unemployed?   Through no fault of their own?   Great!   They can collect unemployment compensation for around 6 months.   More if unemployment is high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, not limited by the State.
Click to expand...


Absolutely correct.

But, once again, what you posted has no bearing on what you quoted.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
Click to expand...

...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us, if we are ProActive." 

We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons, as we have been through before.   But a large majority of homeless have addiction and/or mental health issues.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.

If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mailboxes Ect??    LMAO!!     Are you daft?    YOu want a monumental program, such as replacing welfare with unemployment compensation, to happen at Mailboxes Ect??      No, it could not be setup there.
> 
> 
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
Click to expand...


True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why would anyone spend such a substantial part of their income to pay for the admin costs of a gov't program?
> 
> 
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
Click to expand...


Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
Click to expand...


On the one hand you demean "floozies", and on the other hand you love sluts.    Interesting hypocrisy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  simply Because, means testing has nothing to do with economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said they "opted out" of working?
> 
> Merely unemployed?   Through no fault of their own?   Great!   They can collect unemployment compensation for around 6 months.   More if unemployment is high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, not limited by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.
> 
> But, once again, what you posted has no bearing on what you quoted.
Click to expand...

i must be right.


----------



## beautress

danielpalos said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
Click to expand...

So you're a girlie slut? Who'd a thunk it, Daniella.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone with an income can be treated in a market friendly manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did.   It has to do with preventing fraud.   The program is meant to help people who need help.
> 
> 
> 
> some people are merely unemployed.  equal protection of the law is what they need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you said they "opted out" of working?
> 
> Merely unemployed?   Through no fault of their own?   Great!   They can collect unemployment compensation for around 6 months.   More if unemployment is high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, not limited by the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.
> 
> But, once again, what you posted has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i must be right.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are right that employment is at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.


----------



## beautress

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they could receive their checks in the mail, there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
Click to expand...

The Obama administration was a total fraud and they committed fraud and dabbled in fraudulent deals that made themselves millionaires on the side for threatening foreign government for personal money like Uncle Joe did when he threatened to ruin another government if his son didn't get a billion dollar job out of it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think $470 a week will pay rent, utilities, groceries, AND pay for healthcare with a serious pre-existing condition?    You're dreaming.
> 
> 
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
Click to expand...


Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be market friendly.  that is the goal under Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the one hand you demean "floozies", and on the other hand you love sluts.    Interesting hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

it is about Equality.


----------



## danielpalos

beautress said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're a girlie slut? Who'd a thunk it, Daniella.
Click to expand...

Equal pay for equal work!

I feel fat.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could?
> 
> Here is what the website for Mailboxes Ect says about how to get a mailbox:
> "*Renting your virtual mailbox can get done in 4 easy steps:*
> 
> first, you need to choose a plan and mailbox address, you can get yours today for as little as *$9.95 per month*.
> Then you’ll need to fill out a USPS Form 1583 which is a postal consent form authorizing a third party to receive and handle your mail.
> When done, have the form notarized and send it to PostScan Mail with *two forms of ID*. Once your account is set up, you can start receiving mail regularly.
> You’ll need to apply for a change of address to have your mailing address updated with your new mailbox which can be done online for *$1* at USPS.com."
> Plus, they cost between $20 and $25 each.     So either the person would get $445 a week or you expect the gov't to pay $11 million to rent the mailboxes.    That $11 million could do a lot more to help the 553,000 homeless people in the US.
> 
> Besides, you have to have two forms of ID.
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
Click to expand...


No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stumbled across a thread on this board a few months ago wherein several posters were bitch whining about their inability to get laid. They blamed “feminist bitches” for this problem.
> 
> I suggested they join social groups of people with common interests, get to know some of the women, build friendship which would lead to relationships. It quickly became apparent why these asshats weren’t getting laid.
> 
> They had no interest in socializing with women, or getting to know them, or building relationships. They didn’t even like women. They just wanted them to lay down and spread their legs.
> 
> At the same time, they referred to women who are having sex with other men as “sluts” and “whores”.  I don’t know of any women willing to have sex with misogynistic assholes like these guys either, except for hookers. But you know they don’t want to or can’t afford to pay for it.
> 
> A classic case of entitled assholes who refuse to see that the source of their problem is looking right at them every morning in their bathroom mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the one hand you demean "floozies", and on the other hand you love sluts.    Interesting hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality.
Click to expand...


Jeez you are a creepy little fucker.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal under Capitalism is to make profits.   Those profits are already market friendly.
> 
> Someone spending thousands of dollars of their own money to satisfy a new system that will allow people who choose not to work is not market friendly.
> 
> Market friendly involves two things.    First, circulation of capital.   You have that part.     But it also involves each person producing something, in the form of either goods or services.  You willfully ignore that part.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
Click to expand...


No it does not.

I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.

I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.

For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your point?  you allege people are willing to commit fraud but not get an id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, got a link that that supposed "discussion".  I review thousands of threads on this Board and have never come across anything even remotely like what you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this one? SlutWalks Sweep The Nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...thank goodness we don't have to put up with sluts "trolling for guys who may have an Urge", proclaiming equal work for equal pay!  There is no way we are going to let guys "be abstinent enough to want to harass us", if we are ProActive."
> 
> We love being sluts just for this reason!  For Good not the Bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the one hand you demean "floozies", and on the other hand you love sluts.    Interesting hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez you are a creepy little fucker.
Click to expand...

about equality?  did you go to pre-judge instead of pre-med?  we have a First Amendment.  You need to be more than a hypocrite for me to value the subjective value of your morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  we are talking about compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Don't tell me, you are merely a hypocrite concerning illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
Click to expand...

lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> 
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
Click to expand...





Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
Click to expand...

it isn't in this Case, duh.

they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point is that people are willing to commit fraud to get money.
> And that homeless people cannot get an ID because they do not have an actual address.
> 
> 
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
Click to expand...


Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this new modern society breeds more and more incompetent people.  They can't get laid, nor can they figure out how to make themselves appealing so they lash out like the spoiled brats they are.  A true shame but that is one of the results that an undeserved sense of entitlement breeds.
Click to expand...


Agree, it's yet another mutation of the "victim mentality" beast.
The Media plays on this. As long as people take the "victim/hate" bait,
rating and click-on advertisers will exploit the publicity it drives.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> 
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
Click to expand...


I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).

I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
Click to expand...


Or both.   With no means testing, it would be fairly easy.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
Click to expand...





Sure it is.  Medicare is going bankrupt because of the amount of fraud being committed against it.  That is easily researched.

I suggest you do some before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government must have solutions not excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.
Click to expand...

won't be much of a problem if they may face fines and potential jail time.  

it will solve our homeless problem in a market friendly manner.  this is an issue, especially in big cities where this will help out the most.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.

That is the law.  Enforce the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or both.   With no means testing, it would be fairly easy.
Click to expand...

you are employed or not.  why bother if you are employed?  

why don't you commit fraud now?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  Medicare is going bankrupt because of the amount of fraud being committed against it.  That is easily researched.
> 
> I suggest you do some before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

apples and oranges.  capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that will be corrected for via socialism, that is all.


----------



## Blues Man

Go to NV and get laid

Nevada's Legal Brothels - Nevada Brothel Association


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.   But the gov't must also protect the tax payer from fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> won't be much of a problem if they may face fines and potential jail time.
> 
> it will solve our homeless problem in a market friendly manner.  this is an issue, especially in big cities where this will help out the most.
Click to expand...


No, it will not solve the homeless problem.     At first you were simply ignorant of the reasons why it won't.   But now that it has been explained, you are simply lying.

1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
Click to expand...


My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or both.   With no means testing, it would be fairly easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are employed or not.  why bother if you are employed?
> 
> why don't you commit fraud now?
Click to expand...


For the same reasons I don't commit other crimes.  I am a law abiding citizen and have personal morals and standards.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Go to NV and get laid
> 
> Nevada's Legal Brothels - Nevada Brothel Association


it is more about equality, for free. 

i feel fat, should get gangs of athletic chics wanting to "help us increase our metabolism."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  There will be much less incentive to commit fraud since anyone needing an income can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed or get a job to make as much as they want by simply being capitalistic and market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> won't be much of a problem if they may face fines and potential jail time.
> 
> it will solve our homeless problem in a market friendly manner.  this is an issue, especially in big cities where this will help out the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not solve the homeless problem.     At first you were simply ignorant of the reasons why it won't.   But now that it has been explained, you are simply lying.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.  All they need is an income under capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  Medicare is going bankrupt because of the amount of fraud being committed against it.  That is easily researched.
> 
> I suggest you do some before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.  capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that will be corrected for via socialism, that is all.
Click to expand...


There is already a method of correcting for the natural rate of unemployment.   You just don't like it because it requires that you need the money and you cannot collect it when your needs are being provided for by your mother.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.
Click to expand...

It is called unemployment Compensation for a reason, story teller.  Learn your terms better.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they are simply unemployed through not fault of their own, they can get unemployment compensation.    If they quit or are fired for willfully doing something they new was against the law or the company rules, they cannot draw unemployment compensation.   They are responsible for their choices.
> 
> 
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),

2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.

danielpalos
I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
don't help people become independent.

Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.

The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org

It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.

danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or both.   With no means testing, it would be fairly easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are employed or not.  why bother if you are employed?
> 
> why don't you commit fraud now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reasons I don't commit other crimes.  I am a law abiding citizen and have personal morals and standards.
Click to expand...

so does everyone else.  and they resort to fewer fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's easier to commit fraud in most cases.  Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't in this Case, duh.
> 
> they could merely apply for unemployment compensation or get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.  Medicare is going bankrupt because of the amount of fraud being committed against it.  That is easily researched.
> 
> I suggest you do some before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apples and oranges.  capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment that will be corrected for via socialism, that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already a method of correcting for the natural rate of unemployment.   You just don't like it because it requires that you need the money and you cannot collect it when your needs are being provided for by your mother.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, story teller.  You simply like to make up stories.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
Click to expand...

it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.  

only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't.    The fraud will be committed.   To think that just because someone makes $470 a week in benefits that they will not try for more is simply being naive or ignoring facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> won't be much of a problem if they may face fines and potential jail time.
> 
> it will solve our homeless problem in a market friendly manner.  this is an issue, especially in big cities where this will help out the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not solve the homeless problem.     At first you were simply ignorant of the reasons why it won't.   But now that it has been explained, you are simply lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  All they need is an income under capitalism.
Click to expand...


1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
Click to expand...







And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.

Methinks you are projecting again.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called unemployment Compensation for a reason, story teller.  Learn your terms better.
Click to expand...


Call what you want what it really is, a Free Ride.


----------



## Oddball

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State law is employment at the will of either party.  Equal protection of that law which defines employment relationships within the police power of a State, is what is required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
Click to expand...

Waste of time and keystrokes.

He actually revels in his economic illiteracy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  Why would someone commit fraud if they could get a job, instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they can have a job and still commit fraud.    They want more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> won't be much of a problem if they may face fines and potential jail time.
> 
> it will solve our homeless problem in a market friendly manner.  this is an issue, especially in big cities where this will help out the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will not solve the homeless problem.     At first you were simply ignorant of the reasons why it won't.   But now that it has been explained, you are simply lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  All they need is an income under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?
> 2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.
> 3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.
> 4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

There are already places you can get mail.  And, with recourse to an income, markets will be better able to supply any demand.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
Click to expand...

it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.  

next.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called unemployment Compensation for a reason, story teller.  Learn your terms better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call what you want what it really is, a Free Ride.
Click to expand...

solving for simple poverty bothers the right wing, but not inequality on purpose for the Rich.  i got it.


----------



## danielpalos

Oddball said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Waste of time and keystrokes.
> 
> He actually revels in his economic illiteracy.
Click to expand...

lol.  even wo-men can gossip.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
Click to expand...








Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know full well what I am talking about.    Many years ago, when I was young, I was homeless for a brief period.   I was also on a couple of gov't programs when I went to college (I had 3 kids and a sick wife).
> 
> I didn't live with my Mom.   I needed the assistance.  You just want it so you can do fun things.
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called unemployment Compensation for a reason, story teller.  Learn your terms better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call what you want what it really is, a Free Ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for simple poverty bothers the right wing, but not inequality on purpose for the Rich.  i got it.
Click to expand...







Wrong, welfare is for people who need help to get over a bump in the road.  What you advocate for is feeding the mob free stuff to placate them.  

This is the USA a free country, and if you choose to not work,  you are free to starve.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does.   But equal protection under the law does not entitle you to continue to get paid after you voluntarily quit your job.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
Click to expand...


No I think you misunderstand where the "rightwing" has a problem with the "leftwing" approach danielpalos

1. To you, solving poverty issues through govt is a reflection of the people doing that.
So you see it as democratic protection and participation.

To the rightwing, going through "federal govt" means giving UP power of the people to Congress
which is REMOVED from the people and forces us to jump through hoops hoping to get what we want.
That still inserts Parties and Politicians as the MIDDLEMAN that too easily abuses this power
and SELLS OUT and exploits the people that are supposed to be represented.

What you want is something more DIRECT and GUARANTEED to represent the people.
Govt is not it, because it is set up to be representative, and too much gets lost in the process.

You forget danielpalos, if you keep trying to go through FEDERAL GOVT - that is REQUIRED
to represent ALL THE OTHER TAXPAYERS not just you and what you believe. So you end up
fighting these political and ideological battles because all people have equal freedom of BELIEFS.

You can't just get govt to dictate things YOUR WAY.

If you want direct representation and protection of your beliefs, you have to govern yourself
through your own programs. You'd be better off setting up the benefits program through your
own party, voting in what you want and representatives who believe the same things, and
fund it yourself while deducting those expenses from your federal taxes so you invest directly
and get what you want by building it yourself. That's faster than trying to establish it
through a govt that has to represent 400 million people across 50 states with diverse beliefs
that don't agree on the same terms.

2. What the RIGHTWING has a problem with is depending on govt for handouts as a bandaid,
without making the necessary changes to STOP the poverty and problems. So this ends up
either feeding into a blackhole, like pouring money into keeping a car going without fixing
the problems that keep costing more and more to repair, or it ends up REWARDING RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR. Like paying people to having more babies, to fight for custody so they can get
the monthly support from the other partner, etc.

The RIGHTWING especially Christians who successfully counsel people recovering from
drugs, homelessness, personal abuse, mental or criminal illness BELIEVE in solving the
SPIRITUAL causes of problems so the people can prosper independently by restoring their ability to function
and become leaders instead of victims.

GOVERNMENT CANNOT TEACH THAT PROCESS.

It is individually unique and takes a different timeframe for each person.

That's why Conservatives especially Christians believe in helping people through SPIRITUAL
counseling AS PART OF THE CHARITABLE SUPPORT. they don't believe in just giving the
financial help without making sure the person is getting out of the abusive patterns or crisis.

Again that's like paying more and more to keep the car running, but without fixing the problems.
The CONSERVATIVES want to fix the car instead of keep wasting money on the symptoms.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, none of your reasons are valid.  Your claims of altruistic reasons are just you lying to try to cover for your own greed and laziness.

You want the tax payers to give you money while you live with your Mom.  That will not happen.

You may as well get a job.   You can develop your online business while you earn.

But I will tell you, I know quite a few people who started their own businesses, both online and offline.   They worked harder than most people with a regular job.   I don't think you will do that.  You are looking for someone else to take care of you.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
Click to expand...

give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it. 

And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, not Your subjective moral values.
> 
> That is the law.  Enforce the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My morality has nothing to do with it.    If you make a choice to quit your job, you don't continue to get paid.  That is not equality under the law.  You would be getting your freedom and what you want, but the employer would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called unemployment Compensation for a reason, story teller.  Learn your terms better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call what you want what it really is, a Free Ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for simple poverty bothers the right wing, but not inequality on purpose for the Rich.  i got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, welfare is for people who need help to get over a bump in the road.  What you advocate for is feeding the mob free stuff to placate them.
> 
> This is the USA a free country, and if you choose to not work,  you are free to starve.
Click to expand...

Men have arguments.  Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  That Is employment at the will of either party.  Why do You require a work ethic?  Are you a priest or moral authority?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> I don't require a work ethic.   But if you want money you need one.
> 
> I do, however, require that you live with the consequences of your own choices.
> 
> For many people taxes cause a hardship.   But you want to raise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Poverty is worse.  You simply don't know what you are talking about, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I think you misunderstand where the "rightwing" has a problem with the "leftwing" approach danielpalos
> 
> 1. To you, solving poverty issues through govt is a reflection of the people doing that.
> So you see it as democratic protection and participation.
> 
> To the rightwing, going through "federal govt" means giving UP power of the people to Congress
> which is REMOVED from the people and forces us to jump through hoops hoping to get what we want.
> That still inserts Parties and Politicians as the MIDDLEMAN that too easily abuses this power
> and SELLS OUT and exploits the people that are supposed to be represented.
> 
> What you want is something more DIRECT and GUARANTEED to represent the people.
> Govt is not it, because it is set up to be representative, and too much gets lost in the process.
> 
> You forget danielpalos, if you keep trying to go through FEDERAL GOVT - that is REQUIRED
> to represent ALL THE OTHER TAXPAYERS not just you and what you believe. So you end up
> fighting these political and ideological battles because all people have equal freedom of BELIEFS.
> 
> You can't just get govt to dictate things YOUR WAY.
> 
> If you want direct representation and protection of your beliefs, you have to govern yourself
> through your own programs. You'd be better off setting up the benefits program through your
> own party, voting in what you want and representatives who believe the same things, and
> fund it yourself while deducting those expenses from your federal taxes so you invest directly
> and get what you want by building it yourself. That's faster than trying to establish it
> through a govt that has to represent 400 million people across 50 states with diverse beliefs
> that don't agree on the same terms.
> 
> 2. What the RIGHTWING has a problem with is depending on govt for handouts as a bandaid,
> without making the necessary changes to STOP the poverty and problems. So this ends up
> either feeding into a blackhole, like pouring money into keeping a car going without fixing
> the problems that keep costing more and more to repair, or it ends up REWARDING RECKLESS
> BEHAVIOR. Like paying people to having more babies, to fight for custody so they can get
> the monthly support from the other partner, etc.
> 
> The RIGHTWING especially Christians who successfully counsel people recovering from
> drugs, homelessness, personal abuse, mental or criminal illness BELIEVE in solving the
> SPIRITUAL causes of problems so the people can prosper independently by restoring their ability to function
> and become leaders instead of victims.
> 
> GOVERNMENT CANNOT TEACH THAT PROCESS.
> 
> It is individually unique and takes a different timeframe for each person.
> 
> That's why Conservatives especially Christians believe in helping people through SPIRITUAL
> counseling AS PART OF THE CHARITABLE SUPPORT. they don't believe in just giving the
> financial help without making sure the person is getting out of the abusive patterns or crisis.
> 
> Again that's like paying more and more to keep the car running, but without fixing the problems.
> The CONSERVATIVES want to fix the car instead of keep wasting money on the symptoms.
Click to expand...

it is about faithful execution of our own laws, not merely the hypocrisy of blaming less fortunate illegals.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> 1. Depending on what state you live in, WinterBorn is right.
> In Texas, you are eligible for unemployment benefits if your employment ended because of company policies
> and NOT because of any behavior or choice on YOUR side (ie cannot be
> for resignation and cannot be if you got fired because of your conduct or actions),
> 
> 2. As for "poverty being worse", that also depends what you are talking about.
> You remind me of what Mother Teresa said, comparing the economic poverty in India
> to the spiritual poverty in America, which she said was WORSE.  You can be rich and
> miserable, get depressed and live in addiction or die by suicide; and that's WORSE that
> being poor but being mentally and spiritually grounded where you know how to deal with hardship.
> 
> danielpalos
> I've said this before, and both OBAMA and BEN CARSON also endorse it as the solution:
> that Microlending and business/financial training to UPLIFT people to break out of the
> poverty and victim mentality is a BETTER replacement for govt or charity welfare handouts that
> don't help people become independent.
> 
> Social Justice advocates such as the Welfare Warriors have fought to END the
> backwards system that keeps rewarding people for staying poor and dependent on govt,
> and PUNISHES them for acquiring cars or saving money to get out of poverty
> by taking away their benefits if they start to stabilize. We need a system that
> REWARDS people for INVESTING in developing their educations and careers
> on a SUSTAINABLE basis, not just either handouts, grants or loans without a plan.
> 
> The GRAMEEN FOUNDATION that won a Nobel Prize for stabilizing poor regions
> by investing in community business ownership and development is the more
> sustainable cost effective solution. www.grameenfoundation.org
> 
> It addresses POVERTY and helping people out of it, but DOESN'T rely on
> politics, exploiting poverty, fear or class for VOTES, or on govt controlling benefits.
> 
> danielpalos if you are really against POVERTY you'd look into Microlending
> and how that has transformed people's lives, communities, and approach to changing society.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
Click to expand...






A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, none of your reasons are valid.  Your claims of altruistic reasons are just you lying to try to cover for your own greed and laziness.
> 
> You want the tax payers to give you money while you live with your Mom.  That will not happen.
> 
> You may as well get a job.   You can develop your online business while you earn.
> 
> But I will tell you, I know quite a few people who started their own businesses, both online and offline.   They worked harder than most people with a regular job.   I don't think you will do that.  You are looking for someone else to take care of you.


lol.  anybody can make up stories.  you need valid arguments.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is what we are discussing.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law.  we could be solving simple poverty via existing legal and physical infrastructure in a market friendly manner and on an at-will basis.
> 
> only the immoral right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
Click to expand...

it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel it is moral to steal money from those who actually earn it, and give it to people who CHOOSE  to not work.
> 
> Methinks you are projecting again.
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
Click to expand...






I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.

Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't stealing.  it is providing for the general welfare.
> 
> next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  If I decide to not give it up what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
Click to expand...







Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.

What then genius?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> give what up?  it would be a general tax, you won't even feel it.
> 
> And, business will love you for it since it is no longer, Their problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.
> 
> What then genius?
Click to expand...

That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism.  Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.


----------



## Oddball

See what I mean?

I've encountered nobody anywhere, who knows less about a given topic, who insists about talking about at length despite that total ignorance.

I might as well be attempting to school westwall on the geography of the moon.


----------



## Trinnity

These mass shooters are losers who're ugly or weird and can't can't can't get a woman. It drives them mad.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> A general tax is using the force of government to steal my money from ME.  Money that I could use to benefit my daughter who works her ass off.  Why should I give my money to a lazy piece of shit, like you, who doesn't deserve it?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.
> 
> What then genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism.  Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.
Click to expand...






You didn't answer my question.  If no one works how does your little fantasy work?


----------



## westwall

Oddball said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> I've encountered nobody anywhere, who knows less about a given topic, who insists about talking about at length despite that total ignorance.
> 
> I might as well be attempting to school westwall on the geography of the moon.







Yeah, it's pretty obvious he's a one dimensional 'tard.


----------



## WinterBorn

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.
> 
> What then genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism.  Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  If no one works how does your little fantasy work?
Click to expand...


Oh Daniel doesn't answer questions.  He asks a lot of them, but doesn't answer them.

The response will probably be something about equal protection under the law, a comment about your morality, or an accusation of logical fallacies.

But he is entertaining when work is dull.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare.  and, you don't have the moral high ground with an attitude like that, you could simply quit and go on unemployment if it is too much for you to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.
> 
> What then genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism.  Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  If no one works how does your little fantasy work?
Click to expand...

lol.  that is Your fantasy world.  Capitalism works, that is why we use it.


----------



## Dragonlady

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> means testing would be available for someone for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
Click to expand...


Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP. 

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own. 

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field. 

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador. 

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county. 

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.
Click to expand...

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.


----------



## danielpalos

Dragonlady said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is mandatory for anyone who doesn't qualify for unemployment compensation and needs money.   It is part of the fraud prevention for gov't programs to help people.
> 
> 
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is that?  i help out around the house.  i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.
Click to expand...

American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.


----------



## Dragonlady

danielpalos said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an at-will employment State, a person merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis.  EDD must prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in at at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine providing for those who NEED it, I am not fine with giving money to those who are lazy.
> 
> Fuck them, they can starve.  That's how the real world works.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to work.  And, providing for the general welfare is a reason for the power to tax.  You have no moral basis for your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, let's follow your infantile thinking to the bitter end.  Suppose we ALL choose to not work.
> 
> What then genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your infantile thinking under Capitalism.  Unemployment compensation would be less than the minimum wage to actually work, to provide that market based metric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  If no one works how does your little fantasy work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is Your fantasy world.  Capitalism works, that is why we use it.
Click to expand...


So answer his question.


----------



## danielpalos

Dragonlady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.   Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working.   It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.
> 
> If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice.   If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
Click to expand...

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner.  All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue.  A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
Click to expand...








Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already present.
> 
> And no, it would not solve simple poverty.   And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it.    The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
Click to expand...

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about.  You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.
> 
> Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing.  All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault.  If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect.  If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.
> 
> Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage.  You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits.  So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.
> 
> Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month?  Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto.  And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits.  In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation.  That's why!
> 
> Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program.  Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.
> 
> This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing.  Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy.  Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead.  Where the jobs are in the current economy.
> 
> Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work.  Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada.  Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada.  That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.
> 
> My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county.  That's per windmill.  These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills.  Some big farms have a couple of them.  This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.
> 
> There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction.  Corporate welfare has got to stop.  The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working.  CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
> 
> Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...







Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will.  If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

Women are welcome to "full body massage reparations" simply for being female. 

xoxo


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "at will" employment.  I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute.  "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value.  For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers.  Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong.  And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.
> 
> I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value.  He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys.  He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days.  The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized.  They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time.  When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job".  When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't.  If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
Click to expand...


Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law.  what could be simpler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
Click to expand...

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.  

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.


----------



## westwall




----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.
> 
> 
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.
Click to expand...

Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter?   INCEL based on you being so obese?


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> 
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter?   INCEL based on you being so obese?
Click to expand...

No Porky. I don't live in country with a lot fat women. The ones I see are usually American tourists.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


>


don't appeal to ignorance with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?
> 
> 
> 
> You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter?   INCEL based on you being so obese?
Click to expand...

women are welcome to come over to increase their metabolism, with me.  xoxo


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earning your own way.  Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works.  Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around.  That means YOU are supposed to contribute.  Not just be a leech.
> 
> What could be simpler.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
Click to expand...


No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## westwall

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...






The troll won't answer.  Don't feed it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have Any welfare spending at all?  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troll won't answer.  Don't feed it.
Click to expand...

i don't need to appeal to ignorance, like the right wing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.

YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
Click to expand...

i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.


----------



## Oddball

westwall said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  What you allege means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troll won't answer.  Don't feed it.
Click to expand...

He's too stupid to be a troll.


----------



## danielpalos

You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.
> 
> And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party.   You are free to quit your job.   But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check.   You have chosen to starve.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
Click to expand...


Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.

You lose.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.



You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.

In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.

I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.

The answer is No.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.
> 
> Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine.  Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...

lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
Click to expand...

I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.


Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit.   You made the claim.  The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
Click to expand...


You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
Click to expand...


Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."
Click to expand...


Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great.    But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
Click to expand...

because you are.  why should i take you seriously?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
Click to expand...

I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.


----------



## bodecea

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
Click to expand...

If you spent as much effort looking for a job as you do justifying your being a load.......


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great.    But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
Click to expand...

It means solving for that capital phenomena.   Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.
> 
> YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
Click to expand...


Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
Click to expand...


You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you spent as much effort looking for a job as you do justifying your being a load.......
Click to expand...

I am advocating for equal protection of the law.  Why are you all so ignorant?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't need your ignorance.  i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
Click to expand...

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are Wrong and I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because, I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great.    But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means solving for that capital phenomena.   Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.
Click to expand...


Capital does not need to be given away to produce the positive multiplier effect on our economy.    In fact, due to the lack of production by people like you, the effect is actually less.

But, once again, you did not answer my question.

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right because you say so?    Let us know when you get that check.
> 
> 
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.
Click to expand...


That is not an ad hominem.    This is not a personal attack.   You said you do not lie.   So are you actually 56 years old?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.
Click to expand...


Yes they do.   If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business.    Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great.    But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means solving for that capital phenomena.   Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not need to be given away to produce the positive multiplier effect on our economy.    In fact, due to the lack of production by people like you, the effect is actually less.
> 
> But, once again, you did not answer my question.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
Click to expand...

it is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  a positive multiplier effect is capital not labor, working.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not an ad hominem.    This is not a personal attack.   You said you do not lie.   So are you actually 56 years old?
Click to expand...

it is irrelevant.  you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass.  But you want their money for fun things, not needs.
> 
> In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd.   The work was physically demanding.  I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between.   But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.
> 
> I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director.    Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress.   I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family.   I did all of this to support them.    But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.
> 
> The answer is No.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.  Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy.  Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great.    But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means solving for that capital phenomena.   Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not need to be given away to produce the positive multiplier effect on our economy.    In fact, due to the lack of production by people like you, the effect is actually less.
> 
> But, once again, you did not answer my question.
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  a positive multiplier effect is capital not labor, working.
Click to expand...


I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals?   You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right.    And then you want to talk about my morals?   LOL!     Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not an ad hominem.    This is not a personal attack.   You said you do not lie.   So are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is irrelevant.  you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.
Click to expand...


I am pointing out a specific lie you have told.    A basic one.

You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told.    So yours is an ad hominem.  And one you are continually guilty of committing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you understand nothing.  That is the Only reason you think you win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business.    Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.
Click to expand...

a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


employment is at the will of either party, for any results.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong.   You don't address what they say.   You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business.    Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.
Click to expand...


Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.

I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't lied.  You have to make up lies and claim you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not an ad hominem.    This is not a personal attack.   You said you do not lie.   So are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is irrelevant.  you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out a specific lie you have told.    A basic one.
> 
> You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told.    So yours is an ad hominem.  And one you are continually guilty of committing.
Click to expand...

you have to understand economics to call it a lie.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
Click to expand...


I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't lied?
> 
> Let's start with the most basic.      Are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not an ad hominem.    This is not a personal attack.   You said you do not lie.   So are you actually 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is irrelevant.  you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pointing out a specific lie you have told.    A basic one.
> 
> You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told.    So yours is an ad hominem.  And one you are continually guilty of committing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to understand economics to call it a lie.
Click to expand...


I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> because you are.  why should i take you seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business.    Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

your lack of an argument while alleging you are "more serious", is more laughable.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice.   I don't care.
> 
> But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.
> 
> When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points.    Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like.   It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.
> 
> 
> 
> anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they do.   If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business.    Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your lack of an argument while alleging you are "more serious", is more laughable.
Click to expand...


I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
Click to expand...


Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party, for any results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
Click to expand...

the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


Again, not what I asked.

i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
Problem solved.


I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation.  you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  

You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you.   (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50.   He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into.    He lives quite well on his money.    But he does not have a job.  Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No.   But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
Click to expand...


So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...



WB your are a gluten for punishment trying to talk to this guy,,,

I am sure youve seen he just repeats the same BS over and over,,,

but carry on if you must, just put a little of your sanity in a box so you have some left when its over,,,LOL


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WB your are a gluten for punishment trying to talk to this guy,,,
> 
> I am sure youve seen he just repeats the same BS over and over,,,
> 
> but carry on if you must, just put a little of your sanity in a box so you have some left when its over,,,LOL
Click to expand...

if it isn't for fallacy, the right wing would have no arguments at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
Click to expand...


Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.

You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I asked.   I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WB your are a gluten for punishment trying to talk to this guy,,,
> 
> I am sure youve seen he just repeats the same BS over and over,,,
> 
> but carry on if you must, just put a little of your sanity in a box so you have some left when its over,,,LOL
Click to expand...


Nah, I'm good.    And its a slow week for me at work.  I have been onsite for 2 big river bores.   Not much for me to do unless something goes wrong.  But the company wants me here in case.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what I asked.
> 
> i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit their job and their needs are being taken care of by a relative.
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
Click to expand...


People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.

And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.



Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law means you can quit and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> You cannot appeal to ignorance of that clue and that Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
Click to expand...

if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed. 

marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.

and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that is a 'Yes' on the first question?
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
Click to expand...


No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
Click to expand...

if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he wants it was never the question.   The question is whether or not he is allowed to draw unemployment compensation for simply not having a job.
> 
> You have asked questions and people answered them.    You need to extend the same courtesy.
> 
> I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)
> 
> I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?
> 
> Are you actually 56 years old.
> 
> Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
Click to expand...


Did you read what I said?

*"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*

It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
Click to expand...

he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People will take more money almost anytime.    He doesn't have a job.  So by your plan, he should be able to draw unemployment compensation.
> 
> And you don't need unemployment compensation either.  Your needs are all being met.    Funny how I have been saying that over and over, but you finally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for your "I don't lie" comment......
> 
> 
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
Click to expand...


But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.

You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.

If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.

And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.

And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
"it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if he is generating income, he is probably self-employed.
> 
> marginal labor would receive more benefit since they could quit marginal jobs and go to school or learn a new trade or new skill.
> 
> and, the homeless would have a market based, capital option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

money management is his job.


----------



## PredFan

bodecea said:


> Involuntary Celibate males?    The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too.  (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum)    What's up with this?   Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?



I’ve been aware of them for about a year or so. Most of these guys are INCELS for a good reason. They have no sense of personal style, and no desire to better themselves either physically or mentally. Just like most young people today they are taught to blame others and play the victim.


----------



## danielpalos

capitalism requires competition.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not employed at all.   He has no job.   My explanation was crystal clear, if you had read it.  I posted it at least half a dozen times.
> 
> 
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> money management is his job.
Click to expand...


No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.

And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if he is generating income, he must be self-employed.  how does he manage his money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> money management is his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
Click to expand...

he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.  

you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said?
> 
> *"I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?"*
> 
> It was quite clear.   He is not self employed.  He has no job.
> 
> 
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> money management is his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
Click to expand...


Do you think people wouldn't want more money.   

If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is generating income from capital.   it is a form of self-employment.  "retirement" is just label, in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> money management is his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
Click to expand...

no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he has no job.   That is the sole criteria you have stated over and over and over.
> 
> You do not need the income.    So you do not get either welfare or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you are still saying you won the argument, you are simply delusional.
> 
> And no, it is not "a form of self-employment".    There is not a single rule or tax that applies to the self-employed that applies to a retiree.
> 
> And your own comments of  "if he lives so well being such a Good Capitalist, why does he need public assistance?"   and
> "it doesn't matter if he doesn't need it."  show that you think it should be need based.    Thank you for agreeing with me.
> 
> 
> 
> money management is his job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
Click to expand...


Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?   

Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> money management is his job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
Click to expand...

what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   He doesn't manage his money.    He does not have a job at all.
> 
> And as you are so fond of saying, "he should collect unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed".
> 
> 
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
Click to expand...


What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> he has an income that is presumably beating what he could be making.
> 
> you are the one claiming he Has to be greedy under capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
Click to expand...

it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.  

Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think people wouldn't want more money.
> 
> If only there were some way to limit the compensation to those who actually need it.
> 
> 
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
Click to expand...


Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no pride in being able to be a Good capitalist in your alternate universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
Click to expand...

you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternate universe?   Are you really that naive?
> 
> Given the chance at more money, plenty of people would take it.  I would say "most", but I have a little more faith in humanity than that.
> 
> 
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
Click to expand...


I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.

And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if there is no tax break for income from that source, if you already have an income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
Click to expand...

it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you don't draw unemployment compensation if you quit or are fired for cause.   And the current welfare system takes care of the natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.  

You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it isn't happening now.  And, that would mean more housing assistance and food stamps.
> 
> Equal protection of the law for that purposes actually solves for _actual_ not _fantastical_, economic phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
Click to expand...

You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would mean more housing and food stamps assistance.    Actual housing and actual food.   No one getting assistance they don't need just to take women to dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.

No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.

You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.

I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  i know you don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
Click to expand...

LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care?   lol    You talk about helping the poor and the homeless.  You talk about what is good for the market.   You know what would be good for the poor and homeless?   If you actually DID something besides sitting at home.   It doesn't take money to volunteer.   Go do some good.   But no, you spend your time online arguing about some fantasy system that would allow you to make $14 an hour for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> And the market?   Do you know what would help the market?   If you got a job and produced some goods or services.  If you contributed to the tax base.  THAT would help the market.    But no, you don't want to contribute.   You want to live off the labors of others while you lecture them on morality.
> 
> 
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
Click to expand...


Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it really is as simple as solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
Click to expand...

You only make up stories, not concepts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do something besides just trying to live off being a leech.
> 
> You like to lecture.  But you won't do anything. You won't be part of the solution.  You just want the public to fund your attempts at a sex life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only make up stories, not concepts.
Click to expand...


Allow me to do something you cannot do.    I will give you examples of what I am talking about.

First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation.    I have given you several reasons why that will not help.   Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons.   All my reasons are valid and well explained.

Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market.   This one is very amusing.   I never denied that capital must circulate.   But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another.  Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it.    If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over.  Most of that spending will be in the local economy.   If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy.    Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it.   So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.


Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told?   At least I didn't lie when I first started here.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are worse.  I actually understand economics, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only make up stories, not concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to do something you cannot do.    I will give you examples of what I am talking about.
> 
> First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation.    I have given you several reasons why that will not help.   Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons.   All my reasons are valid and well explained.
> 
> Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market.   This one is very amusing.   I never denied that capital must circulate.   But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another.  Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it.    If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over.  Most of that spending will be in the local economy.   If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy.    Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it.   So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.
> 
> 
> Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told?   At least I didn't lie when I first started here.
Click to expand...

I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem.  People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  

With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets.  Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, I am worse because you say I am worse.  No real reason.
> 
> No, you do not understand economics, or people.    You want to make it easier to live and play without a job.   You refused to answer when asked why would anyone work.
> 
> You do not understand economics.  If you do, you are lying about the results of the way you want things.    To increase the burdens on the tax payers, increase the attractiveness of quitting work, and underestimate the results of the market will result in disaster.    Your methods will create more working poor and do little to help those who need it, while helping those who simply want money to play.   You know, like you.  You have your needs met.  But rather than be happy with that, you want to leech off the tax payers for money to "take women to dinner" so you might get laid (doubtful).    That is beneath contempt.
> 
> I guess pride and self-respect are just words to you, aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only make up stories, not concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to do something you cannot do.    I will give you examples of what I am talking about.
> 
> First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation.    I have given you several reasons why that will not help.   Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons.   All my reasons are valid and well explained.
> 
> Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market.   This one is very amusing.   I never denied that capital must circulate.   But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another.  Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it.    If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over.  Most of that spending will be in the local economy.   If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy.    Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it.   So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.
> 
> 
> Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told?   At least I didn't lie when I first started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem.  People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.
> 
> With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets.  Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.
Click to expand...


Jeez.   Really?   After all that I have told you, you are still trying to pass this off as a good idea?

Let me go back and get the reasons......

Ok, here are the reasons you have seen over and over and over.  (reasons in *Bold*)

*1) Where does the unemployment office mail the check?*
The homeless, by definition, have no mailing address.   The suggestion that they use MailBoxes Ect is even more ridiculous, since they require two forms of ID to get a mailbox.
*2) How does a homeless person get a state ID? No address means no ID. Which means a check is of no use.*
No state is going to issue an ID to someone who cannot prove they are a resident of that state, or even a US Citizen.
*3) Where do they put the money they get? Cash in their pocket? No bank will open an account without an address.*
You think putting $2k a month into someone's pocket is the end all solution?   Maybe if the problem is that there are not enough muggings and robberies.  But certainly not a solution to homelessness.   You would simply be contributing to more victimization of the homeless
*4) How will those with substance abuse and mental problems get help before they are handed $2,000.00 a month? Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.*
Substance abuse has been reported in as many as 68% of the homeless in many cities.  You think handing them $2k a month in cash will help that?  Do you think, given their circumstances and their addictions, that these people will use the money for rehab and save it for a home?   Or will they likely use it to supply their addictions and end up dead?

Given these 4 good reasons against your fantasy of everyone getting a check from unemployment, it boggles my mind that you are still trying to use it.   Talk about not understanding the concepts.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  You are worse because you only tell stories.  Why do you believe You understand any of the concepts presented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only make up stories, not concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to do something you cannot do.    I will give you examples of what I am talking about.
> 
> First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation.    I have given you several reasons why that will not help.   Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons.   All my reasons are valid and well explained.
> 
> Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market.   This one is very amusing.   I never denied that capital must circulate.   But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another.  Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it.    If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over.  Most of that spending will be in the local economy.   If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy.    Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it.   So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.
> 
> 
> Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told?   At least I didn't lie when I first started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem.  People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.
> 
> With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets.  Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez.   Really?   After all that I have told you, you are still trying to pass this off as a good idea?
> 
> Let me go back and get the reasons......
Click to expand...

You have nothing but stories not valid arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, I have had to explain the concepts to you.   lol
> 
> 
> 
> You only make up stories, not concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to do something you cannot do.    I will give you examples of what I am talking about.
> 
> First, your claims that homelessness can be solved by unemployment compensation.    I have given you several reasons why that will not help.   Other than your saying we could issue state IDs without them having an address and that MailBoxes Ect could be where the checks are mailed, you ignored the reasons.   All my reasons are valid and well explained.
> 
> Second, your claim that capital must circulate in the market.   This one is very amusing.   I never denied that capital must circulate.   But that capital will circulate without being taken from one and given to another.  Also, when there is that redistribution, it costs something for the organization to achieve it.    If I have $100, I will circulate that money and it will be spent and re-spent, over and over and over.  Most of that spending will be in the local economy.   If the federal gov't takes $100 from me to redistribute, it might put $90 in the hands of the needy.    Probably closer to $75 or $80 dollars will be put in the hands of those who need it.   So one of your reasons for creating the debacle you want, actually lowers the amount of money in the local market.
> 
> 
> Would you care to follow suit and list or explain any "stories" you think I have told?   At least I didn't lie when I first started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the legal reason why it would solve our homeless problem.  People would simply need go to EDD (in California) and apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.
> 
> With recourse to that income, persons would be able to participate more in our markets.  Thus, solving that form of simple poverty in our economy and engendering that positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez.   Really?   After all that I have told you, you are still trying to pass this off as a good idea?
> 
> Let me go back and get the reasons......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but stories not valid arguments.
Click to expand...


Care to list any of those "stories"        I thought not.


----------



## danielpalos

It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.



Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
Click to expand...

correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
Click to expand...

It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
Click to expand...


The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.  

For long term income you use welfare.  

Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.    

Do what your Mom told you and get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your allegation that increasing market participation in a market friendly manner is somehow Bad and not Good for our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
Click to expand...

Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
Click to expand...


There are programs for the short term and programs for the long term.   You inability to get a check because of a means test does not mean both need to be worked.   

And you aren't in need of help.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are programs for the short term and programs for the long term.   You inability to get a check because of a means test does not mean both need to be worked.
> 
> And you aren't in need of help.
Click to expand...

Poverty and economic inequality under Capitalism, are not short term problems.  There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the method of market participation.    Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
Click to expand...


Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are programs for the short term and programs for the long term.   You inability to get a check because of a means test does not mean both need to be worked.
> 
> And you aren't in need of help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poverty and economic inequality under Capitalism, are not short term problems.  There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


That is why there is long term assistance.  

Unemployment compensation is a short term program.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
Click to expand...

i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.  

Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
Click to expand...


No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the task of unemployment compensation.   It requires a longer term cure.  That is what welfare is for.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
Click to expand...


And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the task of unemployment compensation, to compensate for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Welfare is to concentrate capital on those conditions for which, merely solving for a simple poverty of capital for Individuals, may not be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
Click to expand...

the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


So you have said.  Repeatedly.  

And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The task of unemployment compensation is to provide temporary income for workers displaced through no fault of their own.  It is a stop-gap.
> 
> For long term income you use welfare.
> 
> Daniel, you are like a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove creationism.  You disgard any data that does not fit your preconceived notion.   But, unlike the fundamentalist, you do it solely for your own benefit.
> 
> Do what your Mom told you and get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
Click to expand...


My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

So this movement is CLEARLY a minority so when do their protections come into play?

Stupid dyke finally found a lifestyle more pathetic than hers


----------



## impuretrash

Grampa Murked U said:


> So this movement is CLEARLY a minority so when do their protections come into play?
> 
> Stupid dyke finally found a lifestyle more pathetic than hers



state mandated big titty girlfriends are the only logical solution to incel terrorism


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
Click to expand...

there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  

no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty is a simple social safety net.  You don't need to care beyond that.  You morals, don't matter if you are not directly involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
Click to expand...

the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> 
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
Click to expand...


No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.

There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and as a tax payer, I am involved.  You are the one who is not involved.   You are just looking for an unneeded handout.
> 
> 
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
Click to expand...


Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
Click to expand...

you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am more involved than you, should the issue of standing need to be quibbled.
> 
> Correcting for a market based phenomena is more rational than any political or means tested solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
Click to expand...

not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are not.  You are not paying taxes.  You do not need financial assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
Click to expand...


I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And correcting for the natural rate of unemployment is about people who are either unable to find work or unable to work.   You are neither.  You simply opted out of working.
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
Click to expand...


No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
Click to expand...

you have nothing but ad hominems.  

solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party, not Your silly rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have said.  Repeatedly.
> 
> And yet, you have shown no law saying you are due a continued paycheck after voluntarily quitting your job.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
Click to expand...


Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.

Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My rules are the law of the land.   There is no protection for one who opts out of work and then whines about not having spending money.
> 
> 
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
Click to expand...


There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> no employer is obligated to pay a working wage for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
Click to expand...

it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the law is, employment at the will of either party.  enforce the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is forced to pay a working wage for nothing.  And unemployment compensation is a temporary financial aid.  It is not a cure-all.
> 
> There are good reasons to deny unemployment compensation, according to those who run the program.    What you want is welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
Click to expand...


The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, employment is at the will of either party.    That only means that either party can terminate employment at any time.   It does not mean you continue to receive money.
> 
> 
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are confused.  unemployment compensation, compensates for capitalism's not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment.  providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the same amount of money.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simply that.  why deny and disparage equal protection of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not confused at all.    Unemployment compensation and welfare are two different programs.    The only reason you want unemployment compensation is that it doesn't have a means test.   So you can continue to live with your Mom and get paid for doing nothing.   The reason unemplyment compensation does not have a means test is because of the restrictions on who collects it.    If it becomes financial assistance for anyone without a job (or without an address) there will be some sort of means test, I can guarantee that.
> 
> 
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
Click to expand...


No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not mean you continue to receive any money.   You quit.   You opted out of working.   So the welfare programs are your only option.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment provides for the general welfare through a positive multiplier effect on our economy.  increasing market participation will have the effect of helping our economy become more efficient in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
Click to expand...

yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is what we are discussing, not the subjective value of your morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare does that just as well, if not better.   It provides money to those in need, which a positive multiplier effect on our economy and increases market participation.
> 
> Unemployment compensation was never intended to tackle poverty, as such.
> 
> 
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
Click to expand...


No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.

And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There already is equal protection under the law.     Either side can end the relationship in at-will states.    In the relationship the employer provides pay and the employee provides labor.    You deprive the employer of your labor, but you think you should still receive compensation.   THAT would not be equal protection under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.

And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't do it better or we would have no homeless problem.  correcting for that capital based phenomena is the capital based solution under capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
Click to expand...

it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government. 

a general tax would take the place of our current regime.

and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
Click to expand...

solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way unemployment compensation solves homelessness is if you make some huge changes in the way the benefits are delivered.    Just make those changes to welfare and the problem will be solved.   No need to make the numerous other changes at all.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
Click to expand...


That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?

No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it does not.    You WANT it to mean that, but it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
Click to expand...


YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.

The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is not a huge change.  it is more efficient and will lower costs to employers who will no longer be personally responsible for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
Click to expand...

yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.

we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is express not implied.  why do you have a problem with promoting the general welfare in an economically friendly manner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it will not be more efficient.    In your plan, we would have to revamp the entire unemployment compensation program AND change the way the benefits are delivered.   Why do all that when you can just change the way welfare benefits are delivered and solve the same problem.  Simpler is better, as you have said.   The means test certainly does not bother a homeless person.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem promoting general welfare.    I am in favor of welfare for that expressed purpose.    I am just not in favor of providing benefits for those who do not need them.   A homeless person would have very little problem with a means test.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it will be a simplification since equal protection of the law will cost less to administer.  and, persons being able to circulate that capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
Click to expand...

there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
Click to expand...

it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it will not.    How will unemployment compensation cost less to administer?    It requires information from employers and the gov't.   Welfare only requires the person applying fill out forms.
> 
> And being able to circulate capital is the result of both programs, not just unemployment compensation.   But welfare programs also provide foodstamps and medical insurance, which unemployment compensation does not.
> 
> 
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
Click to expand...


By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.   But, despite your protests to the contrary, equal protection under the law is already in effect with unemployment compensation.
> 
> And if curing simple poverty is your goal, welfare (and associated programs) are already accomplishing that and will do it better if expanded.
> 
> 
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


Equal protection of the law is already there.

And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is simpler with equal protection of the law.  compensation for Capitalism's not employer's natural rate of unemployment is what is being discussed as a function of Government.
> 
> a general tax would take the place of our current regime.
> 
> and "the EDD office" would handle unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.  Employers would no longer have that non-direct-tax burden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
Click to expand...

you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving simple poverty under capitalism should be self-explanatory for market participation based, economic purposes. increasing market participation in that market friendly manner must engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy on an Institutional basis.  that also results in an upward pressure on wage to beat inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter nonsense.   Not only do you want to change who is allowed to draw unemployment, you want to change how it is funded.   And you call that simple?
> 
> No.    Unemployment compensation stays the same and expand welfare as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
Click to expand...


I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.

The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.

And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.

Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu try so hard to sound like an intellectual.    All of that can be accomplished by expanded social welfare programs.    Using part of the expanded welfare budget to provide mental healthcare and substance abuse programs will do more good for the homeless than just offering to send them a check to a nonexistent address.
> 
> The only people not helped by such a program would be those living with their parents and opting out of work.  And that is a very small percentage of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
Click to expand...


The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is simpler and less expensive than what we have now.
> 
> we don't need more welfare.  we need to solve for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
Click to expand...

Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.  

Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare does that.   It provides financial assistance without limiting it to 6 months.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
Click to expand...


This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's really not.    All this is about you wanting someone else, namely the tax payers, to give you money.    And not for necessities, but for fun or luxuries.   Your necessities are taken care of.    But you expect to be able to sit on your ass and do nothing, while the govt takes money from earners, so that you can take women out to dinner.    No.   Take the women to your house and cook them dinner.  That way they will at least get an idea of what you have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...


You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.

Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no limit to capitalism\s natural rate of unemployment.  the right wing has a problem when the Poor may benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...

lol.  Yes, we can.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about providing for the general welfare through equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
Click to expand...

those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, the natural rate of unemployment is only meant to count those looking for a job.    You do not fit that category.
> 
> 
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, we can.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.
Click to expand...


Equal protection under the law is already there.   If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit.    THAT would be equal protection.

And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor.    The social programs provide the financial assistance they need.    But beyond that, they have to work for it.   They cannot expect luxuries without effort.    Nor can you.   Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable.   Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not.  That is not a need.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is already there.
> 
> And promoting the general welfare is already happening thru welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
Click to expand...


How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.

The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.


----------



## Oddball

Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn

Oddball said:


> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?



Yep.    I can work and argue with him at the same time.  Doesn't take much.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you still don't get it.  we subscribe to capitalism not socialism.  thus, capital must circulate not the subjective value of any morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, we can.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.   If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit.    THAT would be equal protection.
> 
> And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor.    The social programs provide the financial assistance they need.    But beyond that, they have to work for it.   They cannot expect luxuries without effort.    Nor can you.   Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable.   Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not.  That is not a need.
Click to expand...

The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just one party for unemployment compensation.  Unequal protection of the law only burdens the Poor.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  We should have no homeless problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
Click to expand...

unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.


----------



## danielpalos

Oddball said:


> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?


The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
Click to expand...

The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...


----------



## Oddball

Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.


----------



## danielpalos

Oddball said:


> Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.


with recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, persons could take as long as the want to practice at becoming Good capitalists.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...

You can dream...


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
> 
> 
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can dream...
Click to expand...




> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws


Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor, are poor already for not taking advantage of available social policies...
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
Click to expand...

Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law is an expressly declared, inalienable right.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
Click to expand...

The law is, employment at the will of either party.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point? Equal opportunity of outcome is not...
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it.  You want a free ride while living with Mom.
> 
> The capital circulates fine.    The programs designed to help the poor work fine.   They may be poor, but, for the most part, they are eating, living indoors and have what they need.   According to studies I have seen, we have roughly 550,000 homeless people.  That accounts for 0.17% of the population.   And most of those have mental and substance abuse problems that have to be addressed first.   99.83% of the population of this country have their basic needs taken care of.    No need to revamp 2 entire systems just for that tiny percentage that has other issues that must be taken care of first.
> 
> And as for morals, which you keep bringing up, I am speaking of pure logic and reason.    But the morality of thinking you should be able to sit on your ass while everyone else works is questionable.
> 
> Why should you get what you want (not need) without working?   Why are you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, we can.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.   If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit.    THAT would be equal protection.
> 
> And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor.    The social programs provide the financial assistance they need.    But beyond that, they have to work for it.   They cannot expect luxuries without effort.    Nor can you.   Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable.   Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not.  That is not a need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just one party for unemployment compensation.  Unequal protection of the law only burdens the Poor.
Click to expand...


Once again, your post has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

"...only burdens the Poor."???    It seems to me that the Poor are the only ones getting benefits from the social programs that meet their basic needs without them having to work.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homeless problem is about mental health and substance abuse far more than unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.

And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still arguing with that tar baby of ignorant sophistry, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Poor potentially being able to benefit from social policies may be too much "social horror" for the right wing to bear.
Click to expand...



More nonsense from our pseudo-intellectual.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> with recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, persons could take as long as the want to practice at becoming Good capitalists.
Click to expand...


Why would they want to wait to become good capitalists?    They are the ones who benefit from it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


So, Daniel think that, since the law is that employment is at-will for both employer and employee, if the employee quits of his own free will, he is entitled to unemployment compensation due to equal protection under the law.    He doesn't care to explain what benefit the employer gets that is anywhere near equal to that.


----------



## WinterBorn

Oddball said:


> Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.



Exactly.   I have told him that.

The entire reason Daniel want unemployment compensation for anyone, regardless of whether they were laid off, quit, or fired for cause, is that he does not want to work.  That is why he came up with this bullshit complaint that equal protection under the law means someone who quits a job should be compensated.

A year or so ago, basically arguing this same topic, I suggested he needs welfare, not unemployment compensation.    Turns out, since he lives with his Mom and she provides for all his basic needs, the welfare means test would disqualify him from any benefits.    Not benefits he needs, but benefits he wants.    

So he has created this entire fantasy argument about how capital needs to circulate to help the market economy, homeless people could be save by unemployment for anyone without a job (when I pointed out that homeless people have no address to mail a check to or to get a bank account, his answer was to use MailBoxes Ect), we could solve simple poverty, and that the state needs to issue state IDs even if you don't have an address.

All of the above is so he can get extra spending money and, hopefully, take women out to dinner.


Just thought I'd catch everyone up.   In case you didn't read the last 50 pages of insanity.   I wouldn't, and I was involved in it.


----------



## Vastator

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   I have told him that.
> 
> The entire reason Daniel want unemployment compensation for anyone, regardless of whether they were laid off, quit, or fired for cause, is that he does not want to work.  That is why he came up with this bullshit complaint that equal protection under the law means someone who quits a job should be compensated.
> 
> A year or so ago, basically arguing this same topic, I suggested he needs welfare, not unemployment compensation.    Turns out, since he lives with his Mom and she provides for all his basic needs, the welfare means test would disqualify him from any benefits.    Not benefits he needs, but benefits he wants.
> 
> So he has created this entire fantasy argument about how capital needs to circulate to help the market economy, homeless people could be save by unemployment for anyone without a job (when I pointed out that homeless people have no address to mail a check to or to get a bank account, his answer was to use MailBoxes Ect), we could solve simple poverty, and that the state needs to issue state IDs even if you don't have an address.
> 
> All of the above is so he can get extra spending money and, hopefully, take women out to dinner.
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd catch everyone up.   In case you didn't read the last 50 pages of insanity.   I wouldn't, and I was involved in it.
Click to expand...

Hmm... What a loser... I will say though, that homeless or not; having an ID should be made possible. Address or not.


----------



## WinterBorn

Vastator said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they took advantage of all social policies available to them, they'd still be poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.   I have told him that.
> 
> The entire reason Daniel want unemployment compensation for anyone, regardless of whether they were laid off, quit, or fired for cause, is that he does not want to work.  That is why he came up with this bullshit complaint that equal protection under the law means someone who quits a job should be compensated.
> 
> A year or so ago, basically arguing this same topic, I suggested he needs welfare, not unemployment compensation.    Turns out, since he lives with his Mom and she provides for all his basic needs, the welfare means test would disqualify him from any benefits.    Not benefits he needs, but benefits he wants.
> 
> So he has created this entire fantasy argument about how capital needs to circulate to help the market economy, homeless people could be save by unemployment for anyone without a job (when I pointed out that homeless people have no address to mail a check to or to get a bank account, his answer was to use MailBoxes Ect), we could solve simple poverty, and that the state needs to issue state IDs even if you don't have an address.
> 
> All of the above is so he can get extra spending money and, hopefully, take women out to dinner.
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd catch everyone up.   In case you didn't read the last 50 pages of insanity.   I wouldn't, and I was involved in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm... What a loser... I will say though, that homeless or not; having an ID should be made possible. Address or not.
Click to expand...


I don't really have a problem with that.   ID is needed.


----------



## danielpalos

Vastator said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law in obtaining unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty is more for political show than for actually solving simple poverty.
> 
> Welfare should be used to identify those areas which may require a "concentration of capital."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This idea that we can "solve" simple poverty is silly.    We can't.    The people, even on social programs, are still poor.   But they have the basic necessities for living a healthy life.   That is what providing for the general welfare means.    It means they are capable of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, we can.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.  Equal protection of the law can solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.   If you insist that the employee be paid, from tax dollars, after quitting, then the employer should be able to use tax payer funded labor to replace the employee who quit.    THAT would be equal protection.
> 
> And simple poverty will not be solved except by the actions and efforts of those who are poor.    The social programs provide the financial assistance they need.    But beyond that, they have to work for it.   They cannot expect luxuries without effort.    Nor can you.   Giving the poor food, medical insurance, housing ect is acceptable.   Giving them money so they can take women to dinner is not.  That is not a need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party, not just one party for unemployment compensation.  Unequal protection of the law only burdens the Poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, your post has nothing to do with the post you quoted.
> 
> "...only burdens the Poor."???    It seems to me that the Poor are the only ones getting benefits from the social programs that meet their basic needs without them having to work.
Click to expand...

that is Your limited understanding.  it is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  it is about equal protection of the law, not your right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
Click to expand...

it really is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, Daniel think that, since the law is that employment is at-will for both employer and employee, if the employee quits of his own free will, he is entitled to unemployment compensation due to equal protection under the law.    He doesn't care to explain what benefit the employer gets that is anywhere near equal to that.
Click to expand...

that is the law.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
Click to expand...

Both nonsense, and irrelevant...


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You adamant refusal to understand that homelessness is not just about finances shows your argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Very often, poverty is about ignorance or bad choices.   I have known people who made as much money as I did, but they were still broke and in financial trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.   

You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can dream...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
Click to expand...


You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income. 

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??  

What makes you so special.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> those ones are easier to identify by solving for simple poverty for all of the other ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
Click to expand...

the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only illegals don't care about the law.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
Click to expand...

stop whining about illegals, then.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.


employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many people have won millions in the lottery and still ended up broke?    You cannot save someone from themselves by giving them tax money.
> 
> The problems with most homeless are not going to be solved by giving them $2k a month.    In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment isn't an enumerated right.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
Click to expand...


Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
Click to expand...


Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.

Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.

Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??

What makes you so special?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> unemployment compensation that bears true witness to our own laws, solves for that on a longitudinal basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
Click to expand...

yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
Click to expand...

the right wing whines about it all the time.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
Click to expand...

you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.  

Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.   Unemployment compensation does not bear witness to anything, much less our own laws.
> 
> And what the hell does "longitudinal basis" mean in this context?
> 
> 
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.

As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
Click to expand...


I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it really is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
Click to expand...

The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
Click to expand...

the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
Click to expand...


Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.

Want money?  Get a job and earn it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep saying.    You think you should get $2k a month from the gov't.    What does the employer get.
> 
> You say it's about equal protection.  You get protection from poverty.   What does the employer get?
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
Click to expand...


No, he does not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said that before.   And it is absolute bullshit every time.
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
Click to expand...


Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party. that is the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
Click to expand...

yes, he does.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining about illegals, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
Click to expand...

lol.  you only have stories not arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, your argument is prefaced by the fact that you think you deserve to have other people work to provide you with income.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
Click to expand...


Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?   

I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The employee gets paid and the employer gets labor.  The employment can be ended by either party.  That does not mean one party continues to get paid and the other no longer gets use of their labor.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, he does.
Click to expand...


No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one time have you seen me post whining about illegals.  Not once.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
Click to expand...


Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  anyone who works gets a market based wage not a rock bottom cost wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
Click to expand...

You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does if the party in question is no longer being paid a market based wage but is merely being compensated for our natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing whines about it all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
Click to expand...

You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice words.  But, once again, your post has no bearing on what you quoted.
> 
> Let me post the questions again so you can try and answer them.
> 
> Why should you get to have an income from the sweat of others, while you sit on your ass??
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...


No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars.   I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor.   I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.

Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.

And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the employer is no longer receiving the labor needed to keep his business going.  If you are going to whine that it is about "equal protection" you need to protect the employer as well.
> 
> As for being paid, especially concerning the natural rate of unemployment, welfare takes care of the needs of those who cannot find a job.
> 
> 
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
Click to expand...


YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you miss the point.  i thought my one liners were simple enough.  i may need two or three liners.
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.  You don't have to work if it will not improve your moral character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars.   I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor.   I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.
> 
> Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.
> 
> And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.
Click to expand...

You simply make up stories, story teller.  Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.   So spare me the inaccurate accusations in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
Click to expand...


I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.

And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral character has nothing to do with it.    But you are correct.  You don't have to work, especially if you have someone providing for your needs.   But demanding that people who work have their taxes given to you for things you want (while your needs are met) is simply immoral.
> 
> Want money?  Get a job and earn it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars.   I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor.   I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.
> 
> Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.
> 
> And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories, story teller.  Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.
Click to expand...


Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner.    And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The employer is free to fire anyone he wants.  The employer still makes the same, or more, regardless of how many employees are fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
Click to expand...

the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  there is no other requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
Click to expand...

The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  Stop whining about taxes.  Just quit if you don't have the moral fortitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars.   I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor.   I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.
> 
> Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.
> 
> And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories, story teller.  Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner.    And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.
Click to expand...

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he does not.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, he does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.
Click to expand...


No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.     Are you on the autism spectrum?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
Click to expand...


The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?

Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.
Click to expand...

lol.  you simply make up stories, story teller.  too bad Your stories have no basis in economics. 

cutting costs means higher profits.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moral fortitude?    Says the boy who lies about his age and wants to live with his Mom and have working people pay him for doing nothing so he can enjoy luxuries?
> 
> I don't whine about taxes.   I complain about our taxes being wasted.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply complain.  We need better solutions at lower cost.  One solution is solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I specifically complain about wasting tax dollars.   I have not complained about providing tax money for the needs of the poor.   I have complained about someone, namely you, that wants to be paid out of the public coffers for luxuries and not needs.
> 
> Providing solutions at lower costs could best be served by refusing to pay someone for luxuries and only paying for needs.
> 
> And the welfare system is more efficient than the unemployment compensation system, especially when you consider the monumental costs involved in changing the entire system away from the original intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories, story teller.  Solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner is much more efficient than any solution based on politics instead of economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare provides money, food and medical insurance for those who need it, in an efficient manner.    And it also works to make sure the tax dollars go to those who need it, not just want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly.
Click to expand...


Welfare programs provide a more complete compensation for the natural unemployment.     And, once again, the natural rate of unemployment only counts those seeking a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he does not.    If you, as an employee, produce a product, quitting your job and forcing the employer to train a new employee reduces production.   If the employer has to replace you, he has to spend money on running an ad, paying someone to do the paperwork for your separation, take time away from running his business to interview and re-interview prospective employees, pay someone to do the new hire paperwork, pay someone to train the new employee (which takes them away from their primary job).     All of those costs cut into the profit margin.   So no, the employer does not make the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories, story teller.  too bad Your stories have no basis in economics.
> 
> cutting costs means higher profits.
Click to expand...


Cutting costs do mean higher profits, provided production remains the same.  As I showed earlier, your quitting causes a drop in production and an increase in spending on things that do not produce.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you only have stories not arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he does.  His income is not affected only his profits.  And, he can always "get raided for a golden parachute while Labor loses their vestment in benefits."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories, story teller.  too bad Your stories have no basis in economics.
> 
> cutting costs means higher profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting costs do mean higher profits, provided production remains the same.  As I showed earlier, your quitting causes a drop in production and an increase in spending on things that do not produce.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.  Only the right wing does that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not stories.  Just correcting your comments that have nothing to do with what you quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are using the very few overpaid CEOs instead of looking at the majority of businesses that exist.    And even in those cases of overpaid CEOs, your quitting effects the stockholders.    And many of those stockholders are investments for retirement and pension funds.
> 
> 
> 
> the Point is, it is about equal protection of the law regarding employment at the will of a potential employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my comment was specifically pointing out your error (or lie) about the employer making the same after you quit your job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you simply make up stories, story teller.  too bad Your stories have no basis in economics.
> 
> cutting costs means higher profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cutting costs do mean higher profits, provided production remains the same.  As I showed earlier, your quitting causes a drop in production and an increase in spending on things that do not produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, he did not whine about minimum wages.  Only the right wing does that.
Click to expand...


And his production increased, thereby increasing his profits.   He did not do it out of charity.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply make up stories that have nothing to do with economics or the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that is not the case.  

A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. 

General taxes are much more market friendly.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not made up a single story.  Despite your continued accusations, you cannot point to a single one.
> 
> And you refuse to answer why you think you should be able to get a check for luxuries from the taxes of those who work for their money?   Why should the majority work so that you can be lazy and enjoy the same benefits?
> 
> 
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
Click to expand...


How so?   

And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.

Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Law, is employment at the will of either party.  Enforce the law, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
Click to expand...

you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?


It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
Click to expand...


First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.

Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
Click to expand...


NONSENSE


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
Click to expand...

administrative costs are what make it expensive.

with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is enforced.    The employer cannot make you stay on or fine your for quitting.   You cannot quit and expect the unemployment compensation system to continue to pay you, especially for luxuries?
> 
> Why do you think you should get paid for doing nothing when the rest of the population must work to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
Click to expand...


That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.

Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
Click to expand...

You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.

Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the law is clear.  Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
Click to expand...

It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
Click to expand...

i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.

First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.

I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.

I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   YOu are free to quit and the employer is free to fire you.  If you quit, your paycheck stops.  If he fires you, he loses your labor.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
Click to expand...


Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
Click to expand...


Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.

You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
Click to expand...

in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is saying that is not the case.
> 
> A more faithful execution of the law would mean adults could go to EDD to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> General taxes are much more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
Click to expand...

it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, this entire line of discussion started because you want to scam the system for money to take women out to dinner in hopes of getting laid.
> 
> Do you think women will want you after they find out you are incapable of supporting yourself and don't want to work?   Hell, that you even demean people who work?
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
Click to expand...


You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> And the welfare programs are funded by general taxes.    They just won't let you scam them for money for luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.

Where is the inequality?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
Click to expand...


You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the means testing is simply having the applicant fill out forms.   Roughly 10% are check.   That is more efficient than UC.
> 
> Second of all, if the unemployment compensation is revamped the way you want, there will undoubtedly be a means test added.   No one wants to pay people out of tax dollars that do not need it.
> 
> 
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
Click to expand...


Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?

And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about equality and equal protection of the law.  Only right wingers have a problem with it and don't mind resorting to the affirmative action of the franchise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
Click to expand...

lol.  you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you simply understand nothing about economics.  means testing is always much more costly than actually solving for economic phenomena under our form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Where is the inequality?
Click to expand...

a lack of equal protection of the law.  i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
Click to expand...

i have already informed you several times, several pages ago.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> administrative costs are what make it expensive.
> 
> with unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can exercise their Individual Liberty regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
Click to expand...

you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> NONSENSE
> 
> 
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!   I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim?     Too funny.

No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check.  Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a surprise for those who have compared both.
> 
> Do you have any evidence?   Or is this just another "it is right because I say it is right"?
> 
> 
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Where is the inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law.  i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.
Click to expand...


Do you?    Funny, you have not shown them.    What is unequal?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have already informed you several times, several pages ago.
Click to expand...


No, you have not.    Unless you are counting that ridiculous "the employer makes the same amount of money" nonsense.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
Click to expand...


That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.

People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a valid argument or cede the point and (the potentially legal) argument, story teller.
> 
> Why do you believe Labor as the least wealthy would be worse off with equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept and federal doctrine concerning employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim?     Too funny.
> 
> No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check.  Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party.  there are no other requirements.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What admin costs?   The applicant files out the paperwork and 90% just go in the file.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
Click to expand...


No, you are doing amazing backflips in logic to justify getting a check to pay for luxuries.    You are not part of the natural rate of unemployment unless you are seeking a job.  Which you have not done for at least 2 years.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means you are wrong for simply being frivolous about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Where is the inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law.  i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you?    Funny, you have not shown them.    What is unequal?
Click to expand...

lol.  protection of the law.  there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need a valid argument?    Why?   You rarely have one.
> 
> First of all, the unemployment compensation, including the limitation of only including those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was a left-wing program.  So you are wrong that the unemployment compensation restrictions are from rightwingers.
> 
> I have never said that labor, as the least wealthy, would be worse off with equal protection of the law.    In fact, I have said repeatedly that both sides enjoy equal protection under the law.
> 
> I have said that labor, as the least wealthy, if they are unable to work or find work, would be better off on welfare programs than on unemployment compensation.   And I have explained why in great detail several times.
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim?     Too funny.
> 
> No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check.  Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  there are no other requirements.
Click to expand...


So you are free to quit your job.   This deprives your employer of your labor.   And since you voluntarily quit, you have no check from unemployment compensation.  THAT is equal protection under the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frivolous?    Not at all.   I have been very serious about programs to help the poor.     I am, however, frivolous about someone wanting to scam they systems for money for luxuries, and not needs.    But then, that deserves frivolity.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Where is the inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law.  i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you?    Funny, you have not shown them.    What is unequal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  protection of the law.  there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


Why?    You expect employers to hire you whether they want you or not?   You get to quit if you want, and they get to fire you.   That is equal protection.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't believe you.  why not show actual and comparative costs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> 
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.
Click to expand...

you understand nothing.  why tell stories?


----------



## WinterBorn

Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words, promoting the general welfare through equality must be better than promoting the general malfare through inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality.   Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you have no understanding of economics or you would not be saying that, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!   I wouldn't be asking you to provide any sort of evidence of your claim?     Too funny.
> 
> No, Daniel, there is no inequality that warrants you drawing a check.  Especially not one that allows you to draw it for the full 6 months (of course you want it longer).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  there are no other requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are free to quit your job.   This deprives your employer of your labor.   And since you voluntarily quit, you have no check from unemployment compensation.  THAT is equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

why is there that restriction on equal protection of the law?  do we need a simpler system.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?   When I have shown facts and included links, you still use your same ridiculous arguments.
> 
> You even claimed admin costs were what make means testing expensive.    Did you do any research on it?   Do you have a link?
> 
> 
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> 
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you understand nothing.  why tell stories?
Click to expand...


YOu quoted my post.     Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about Equality and solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to show there is any inequality. Until you do, this line of reasoning is more nonsense.
> 
> Where is the inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a lack of equal protection of the law.  i have valid arguments not just stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you?    Funny, you have not shown them.    What is unequal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  protection of the law.  there should be no denial, disparagement, or infringement to the Individual Liberty of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?    You expect employers to hire you whether they want you or not?   You get to quit if you want, and they get to fire you.   That is equal protection.
Click to expand...

you simply tell stories.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no requirement to seek employment in an at-will employment State.  compensation is for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, that is all.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?


higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is literally, about enforcing existing law in an equitable and just manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> 
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you understand nothing.  why tell stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu quoted my post.     Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
Click to expand...



First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.

Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research on what percentage of the population must be working in order to support the other part that follows your plan for your laziness being funded by the tax payer?     If others want to "opt out of working", how many people must work and pay taxes to fund that?
> 
> And why should everyone else work just so you can do nothing and still have money for luxuries?
> 
> 
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> 
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you understand nothing.  why tell stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu quoted my post.     Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


How is that explaining what is inaccurate about my saying:
"That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met"


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?


both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
Click to expand...

only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no understanding of economics.  solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner is all i am advocating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> 
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you understand nothing.  why tell stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu quoted my post.     Tell me exactly what was inaccurate about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that explaining what is inaccurate about my saying:
> "That is happening now with the welfare programs.   People are able to apply for these programs to take care of their needs.    You want to soil that with demanding checks to fund luxuries, not needs.
> People will still be poor.   But they will have their needs met"
Click to expand...

It means you have absolutely no standing and are merely being frivolous in public venues.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?


equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
Click to expand...


Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.
Click to expand...


It is enforced.   It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.


----------



## WinterBorn

So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries. 

Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.
Click to expand...

Solving for simple poverty both promotes and provides for the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
Click to expand...

lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is enforced.   It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.
Click to expand...

there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.
> 
> Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?


You have no understanding of economics.  

and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.

just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
Click to expand...


But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is enforced.   It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Not paying for luxuries with tax dollars taken from the wage earners is a reason to deny and disparage unemployment benefits outside of our current unemployment compensation program limitations.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.
> 
> Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> You have no understanding of economics.
> 
> and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.
> 
> just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.
Click to expand...


I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.

And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've offered no excuses and you have not answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty both promotes and provides for the general welfare.
Click to expand...


Solving for simple poverty and promoting for the general welfare is fine as long as it provides for necessities.    When it provides luxuries for those who refuse to work it becomes theft and ceases to be about solving simple poverty or providing for the general welfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

depotoo said:


> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy


*All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
Click to expand...

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.

This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is expressly enumerated as a right responsible for government for enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is enforced.   It simply does not offer pay for luxuries to someone who quit their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no basis to deny or disparage unemployment benefits if Labor quits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not paying for luxuries with tax dollars taken from the wage earners is a reason to deny and disparage unemployment benefits outside of our current unemployment compensation program limitations.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law is the goal.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.
> 
> Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> You have no understanding of economics.
> 
> and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.
> 
> just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.
> 
> And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.
Click to expand...

i think it is immoral to whine about taxes when i could just quit and go on unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
Click to expand...

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> 
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
Click to expand...


Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel, the point of the question is whether or not tax dollars should be taken from those who earned them and given to someone to pay for luxuries.
> 
> Do we give luxury money to people who did not earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> You have no understanding of economics.
> 
> and, no one is making you work in our at-will employment States.
> 
> just quit your day job if you don't have enough moral fortitude to work and pay taxes for those less fortunate than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is immoral to quit a job and leech off the tax payer when I am capable of supporting myself.
> 
> And I do not believe we should take tax dollars from those who earn them just to give them to those who do not, in order to pay for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think it is immoral to whine about taxes when i could just quit and go on unemployment.
Click to expand...


I am not whining about taxes in general.   Just about wasting those taxes providing for luxuries for someone who refuses to work.

And you cannot quit your job and go on unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Stubbs said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
Click to expand...

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
Click to expand...


This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
Click to expand...


Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Stubbs said:


> But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.
> 
> This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.


it should be abolished in modern times.

the right wing should have to convince us of their moral sincerity, first.

we already know there are not enough morals to go around if we have the Expense of Government for the right wing to whine about.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
Click to expand...

lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
Click to expand...

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dan Stubbs said:


> But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.
> 
> This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.



What?    What the fuck does that have to do with INCELS or this sub-topic about drawing unemployment if you quit your job?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
Click to expand...

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.
> 
> This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.
> 
> 
> 
> it should be abolished in modern times.
> 
> the right wing should have to convince us of their moral sincerity, first.
> 
> we already know there are not enough morals to go around if we have the Expense of Government for the right wing to whine about.
Click to expand...


It already is abolished every where we have jurisdiction.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
Click to expand...


It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.

And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
Click to expand...


Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
Click to expand...


Obviously most people do not think so.    Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job.   And that is rare indeed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
Click to expand...


No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.

If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.

But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
Click to expand...

capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.  I had never heard of it.  I found this guardian article about it-
> 
> 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
Click to expand...

i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously most people do not think so.    Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job.   And that is rare indeed.
Click to expand...

too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
Click to expand...


It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
Click to expand...


Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously most people do not think so.    Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job.   And that is rare indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.
Click to expand...


The people running the unemployment compensation are not ignorant of the law.    They, like me, would wonder what is unequal about the protection under the law that employees and employers currently enjoy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
Click to expand...


Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.

But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.

I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.

I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
Click to expand...

no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
Click to expand...

i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously most people do not think so.    Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job.   And that is rare indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people running the unemployment compensation are not ignorant of the law.    They, like me, would wonder what is unequal about the protection under the law that employees and employers currently enjoy.
Click to expand...

that merely needs to be challenged.  no one is claiming the right wing is about morals.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
Click to expand...

it is about enforcing State law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.
Click to expand...


Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance.    That is all.     If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it.    It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries.    If you want luxuries, get a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine?    Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."
Click to expand...


Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well.   Unless you are just hiring hookers.    And few people would call those "nice girls".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.
> 
> 
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
Click to expand...


They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance.    That is all.     If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it.    It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries.    If you want luxuries, get a job.
Click to expand...

means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well.   Unless you are just hiring hookers.    And few people would call those "nice girls".
Click to expand...

if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller. 



> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.    The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.
> 
> And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work.  And that would be from the right AND the left.
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance.    That is all.     If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it.    It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries.    If you want luxuries, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.
Click to expand...


It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law.    It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.

There is equal protection under the law.    And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?
> 
> 
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well.   Unless you are just hiring hookers.    And few people would call those "nice girls".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."
Click to expand...


Easy way to fix that.   Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not unlawful.    The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.   It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.
> 
> If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.
> 
> But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of.   And that is the way it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance.    That is all.     If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it.    It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries.    If you want luxuries, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law.    It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.
Click to expand...

there is no appeal to ignorance of equal protection of the law, laws,


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well.   Unless you are just hiring hookers.    And few people would call those "nice girls".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy way to fix that.   Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.
Click to expand...

i get "harassed for really really serious relationships not sex."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are.  All it takes is a class action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
Click to expand...

lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare.    Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance.   All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it won't and can't.  means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance.    That is all.     If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it.    It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries.    If you want luxuries, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law.    It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no appeal to ignorance of equal protection of the law, laws,
Click to expand...


This phrase is one of your quick replies when you have nothing to say.   I did not appeal to ignorance.   I made a statement, and you ignored it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?
> 
> 
> 
> i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well.   Unless you are just hiring hookers.    And few people would call those "nice girls".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy way to fix that.   Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i get "harassed for really really serious relationships not sex."
Click to expand...


By women who either don't know you or don't know your situation.     Everyone gets the "Hi, I'd love to get to know you" emails.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to file one.    I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case.   And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.
> 
> But please, do try and file one.    I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.
> 
> I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.
> 
> I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.   

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about enforcing State law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
Click to expand...

lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are enforcing state and federal laws.     Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


lol

Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance. 

This is the Law that should be enforced:



> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stereotype?     YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you?     Who did I stereotype?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.

If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  see what i mean.  i gave you the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
Click to expand...

that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.

Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.


lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.

this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._


----------



## danielpalos

EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
Click to expand...


The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
Click to expand...


I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.



That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition.  You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.
> 
> Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment".    You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit.  We know the definition.
> 
> "...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it.    You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.    But none of that means you will continue to get paid.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
Click to expand...


What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
Click to expand...


His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.  

And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.

He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
Click to expand...

it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
Click to expand...

for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party.  there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?
Click to expand...

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  under Capitalism, only Capital has to circulate not labor.  solving for simple poverty means a more efficient positive multiplier effect for our economy.   your "for-cause criteria are irrelevant and have no standing in our at-will employment State."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
Click to expand...

He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.

One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.

No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> 
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
Click to expand...


He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.

Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause.   That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places.   Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  under Capitalism, only Capital has to circulate not labor.  solving for simple poverty means a more efficient positive multiplier effect for our economy.   your "for-cause criteria are irrelevant and have no standing in our at-will employment State."
Click to expand...


Let's see.  I have named several.    

1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.

All of those have good standing in our at-will employment states.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
Click to expand...


There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.

Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
Click to expand...

That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
Click to expand...

He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State.  you merely appeal to ignorance.
> 
> This is the Law that should be enforced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no requirement for a for-cause termination.   But using it means protection for the employer and to make the employee ineligible for rehire or unemployment compensation.
> 
> If you break the law or break company rules, you suffer the consequences.    Currently, that is not being eligible for rehire, possibly not being hired by other employers, and disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits.    All of those are perfectly reasonable.    Yes, they can fire you for any or no reason.   But if you give them a good reason, it is ridiculous to say they should not be able to fire you for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is up to a court to decide; and, equal protection of the law cannot be ignored.
> 
> Someone who is unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage" for an employee who has no marketable skills to offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.  under Capitalism, only Capital has to circulate not labor.  solving for simple poverty means a more efficient positive multiplier effect for our economy.   your "for-cause criteria are irrelevant and have no standing in our at-will employment State."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see.  I have named several.
> 
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> All of those have good standing in our at-will employment states.
Click to expand...

it is irrelevant to employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
Click to expand...

it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income.    What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts have decided that.   There was a case involving Wellborn Cabinets in Alabama.   The employee refused to follow established safety protocols.   He was reprimanded twice and then terminated for-cause.    When he was hired by another company, apparently Wellborn did not report that he was fired for-cause and did not tell the new employer when they called for a reference.    The employee again refused to follow safety protocols and was badly hurt in an industrial accident.   The new employer sued Wellborn for not reporting the for-cause termination and for not telling them the employee was a safety hazard, which subsequently cost the new employer significant financial damages when their Worker Comp costs went up.     Wellborn lost the lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
Click to expand...


First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.

Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are claiming Labor as the least wealthy are simply not worth equal protection of the law under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> this is the Law that needs to be enforced: _ An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
Click to expand...

you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
Click to expand...


It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the point was, he should have been able to quit and collect unemployment compensation to reduce costs instead of costing his employer more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
Click to expand...

with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> EDD must Prove a for-cause employment relationship existed to deny or disparage benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
Click to expand...

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.

this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:

_An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am claiming that voluntarily quitting a job means you no longer get paid.
> 
> 
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
Click to expand...


No, you did not.

Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.

And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> His quitting did not reduce costs.   It raised costs.   Hiring costs money and time for the employer.
> 
> And his careless attitude cost his next employer even more.
> 
> He knew the rules.   His failure to follow them cost his new employer money.  No one forced him to ignore safety rules.  He did that on his own.  He should be willing to live with his own choices and the consequences of his actions.
> 
> 
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.

"Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.

Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it should mean you no longer get a market based wage, but the rock bottom cost of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> there is no work requirement in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
Click to expand...

employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ridiculous.    There is no need to prove anything beyond the fact that there was an employment relationship and that there was a valid reason to fire the employee for-cause.
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
Click to expand...


Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.

Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would have been able to quit sooner, instead of becoming "disgruntled at the inequality of it all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
Click to expand...

Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  When you voluntarily quit a job, you voluntarily quit a paycheck.
> 
> One of the things you need to understand is that nobody owes you a paycheck.    There are programs that can help you if you need it, but not for luxuries.
> 
> No, there is no work requirement in any at-will employment state.     There is also no requirement that the state pay you when you refuse to get a job and you have your needs met.
> 
> 
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
Click to expand...


Absolutely wrong.

If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause employment has to be expressed in Writing, otherwise it is at-will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
Click to expand...

enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:

_an employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That person should be able to go to EDD and obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State.  Simply asking for, "for-Cause criteria" should be unlawful in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
Click to expand...

that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working?   What makes you so special?

You keep refusing to answer this question.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment.    But there is for-cause termination.  And there is for-cause termination is an at-will employment state.
> 
> Why do you want people to be free of the consequences of their choices, while employers are expected to pay for the consequences of the employee's choices?   That would be a rather grave inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
Click to expand...


They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained why that is wrong.   If you can't understand it, that is not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
Click to expand...


There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> 
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
Click to expand...


Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He could have quit anytime.   He chose to continue to work and violate safety protocols.
> 
> Why do you think he was "disgruntled at the inequality of it all"?     What inequality would have caused that?
> 
> 
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
Click to expand...


This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.

People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.

If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.

At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?

And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working?   What makes you so special?
> 
> You keep refusing to answer this question.


you seem incapable of understanding the economic rational.  it is about solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can do that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has to be expressed in writing, otherwise it may be challenged on equal protection grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.
Click to expand...

employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid rebuttal because i explained why You are wrong in that post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
Click to expand...

that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
Click to expand...

you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working?   What makes you so special?
> 
> You keep refusing to answer this question.
> 
> 
> 
> you seem incapable of understanding the economic rational.  it is about solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.  compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can do that.
Click to expand...


The natural rate of unemployment, as I have explained before, only counts those seeking work.    You are not.   You are seeking long term financial charity for luxuries.  Nothing more and nothing less.   

Why is it that you think you should receive a good income, for luxuries not needs, without working?   What makes you so special?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would have quit sooner and saved the employer some money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
Click to expand...

lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> Nothing you said rebutted these reasons:
> 1) Making sure he does not get rehired.
> 2) Making sure any future employers know of his violations.
> 3) Making sure he does not profit from his own violation of known safety protocols.
> 
> And your claim that having at-will employment status in your state means you cannot be fired for-cause is laughably naive and wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> 
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
Click to expand...


Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have no way of knowing what he would have done.
> 
> Second of all, even before the accident, his quitting would have cost money.
> 
> 
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is explained in the unemployment compensation forms, and it is explained in the new hire packets.
> 
> 
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at the will of either party.  only a Court can impose punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
Click to expand...

so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
Click to expand...

you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> with equal protection of the law, only happy and motivated employees should be looking for work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
Click to expand...

whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.
> 
> this is State law and should be enforced, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.
Click to expand...

the Law is the Law.  be legal to the Law, right wingers.  fix that moral example for the rest.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> 
> If you are fired for cause, the company can, even without pressing charges, can punish you by giving you a bad reference for the time you worked for them.    You cannot force a previous employer to give you a good review.
> 
> 
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.
Click to expand...


Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.

Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    People work because they want to earn a living.   Most people prefer to earn a living rather than live off the taxes of people who do.
> 
> "Happy and motivated" are not words used in any employment or unemployment laws.
> 
> Besides, how do you know he wasn't happy?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.
Click to expand...


You know what I mean.    Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that can be challenged in any at-will employment State.  for-Cause employment must be expressed in Writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
Click to expand...

The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.   Basically anything can be challenged.   But if you do, you will not win.
> 
> Employers will always have a means of terminating employees who break the law or break company rules.    Even if you are an independent contractor, your contract will always state that you must follow all relevant laws and company rules and policies.
> 
> 
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Law is the Law.  be legal to the Law, right wingers.  fix that moral example for the rest.
Click to expand...


No, the law states that an employer CAN, in fact, fire you for cause.  You just don't like it and want the law changed.    It won't happen.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.
> 
> Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.
Click to expand...

since when is the minimum wage "luxurious", story teller?  

why does the right wing not have enough moral fortitude and complain about mere minimum wages for the Poor but not maximum wages for the Rich.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
Click to expand...


Regardless of that, at some point there will be more people wanting these benefits that you want to setup than the system can afford.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is a the Will of Either party.  Persons should work because they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I mean.    Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?
Click to expand...

If you understood Anything about economics, you would know why.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> enforce the law, right wingers.  don't be illegal to State law:
> 
> _n employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do enforce it.    There is equal protection under the law.   If you are fired for cause, you don't get any money.   If you quit because your employer is break the law you can sue for back wages and even damages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at-will not for-cause because that would have to be in Writing in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that you think an employee should be able to do virtually anything they want, ignore any rules, and still be compensated if they are fired for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Law is the Law.  be legal to the Law, right wingers.  fix that moral example for the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the law states that an employer CAN, in fact, fire you for cause.  You just don't like it and want the law changed.    It won't happen.
Click to expand...

an employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they want to work or they want the money that comes with it.    You don't get money for luxuries unless you work.   The decision is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.
> 
> Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since when is the minimum wage "luxurious", story teller?
> 
> why does the right wing not have enough moral fortitude and complain about mere minimum wages for the Poor but not maximum wages for the Rich.
Click to expand...


Since when did I say the minimum wage is luxurious?    I didn't.

The state paying you for your luxuries is what I said.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, at some point there will be more people wanting these benefits that you want to setup than the system can afford.
Click to expand...

lol.  my what stories you tell under our form of capitalism, story telling right winger.  

why do You believe people will flock to a minimum wage and not a maximum wage under Capitalism?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This speaks to the root of your entitlement mentality.
> 
> People do not work because they want to work.   They work because the want the results of working.
> 
> If anyone who didn't want to work was paid by the gov't, how many people would be working?    A lot less.
> 
> At what point will the number of people not working no longer be sustainable by the taxes of those who do work?
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I mean.    Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood Anything about economics, you would know why.
Click to expand...


I understand economics quite well.    You, obviously, do not.    You want others to work so that there will be tax money to give to you, despite having your needs already met.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> 
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, at some point there will be more people wanting these benefits that you want to setup than the system can afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my what stories you tell under our form of capitalism, story telling right winger.
> 
> why do You believe people will flock to a minimum wage and not a maximum wage under Capitalism?
Click to expand...


A minimum wage for doing nothing?  Many people would find that attractive.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need more moral fortitude that any mere false witness bearer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.
> 
> Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since when is the minimum wage "luxurious", story teller?
> 
> why does the right wing not have enough moral fortitude and complain about mere minimum wages for the Poor but not maximum wages for the Rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when did I say the minimum wage is luxurious?    I didn't.
> 
> The state paying you for your luxuries is what I said.
Click to expand...

lol.  with a Minimum wage instead of a Maximum wage?



> 16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:
> 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
> 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,
> 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.


you should strive to be Good and not Bad, right winger.  that is the "gospel Truth" way.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  we really are entitled to equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I mean.    Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood Anything about economics, you would know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand economics quite well.    You, obviously, do not.    You want others to work so that there will be tax money to give to you, despite having your needs already met.
Click to expand...

lol.  only story tellers who understand Nothing about economics, say that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless of that, at some point there will be more people wanting these benefits that you want to setup than the system can afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  my what stories you tell under our form of capitalism, story telling right winger.
> 
> why do You believe people will flock to a minimum wage and not a maximum wage under Capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A minimum wage for doing nothing?  Many people would find that attractive.
Click to expand...

lol.  to a market based wage for actually working ?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no for-cause employment in an at-will employment state.   But there is for-cause termination in an at-will state.
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
Click to expand...


"The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal."????     That is bullshit.    YOur goal is to be able to spend money on luxuries without having to get a job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why do you expect to be taken care of financially, including luxuries, by the state when by doing so you make it so others cannot?
> 
> 
> 
> whatever can you mean, story teller.  Aesop told much better stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I mean.    Why do you expect the tax payers to pay for luxuries for you, why by doing so they limit the resources for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood Anything about economics, you would know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand economics quite well.    You, obviously, do not.    You want others to work so that there will be tax money to give to you, despite having your needs already met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  only story tellers who understand Nothing about economics, say that.
Click to expand...


Economics has nothing to do with my saying that.    The fact that you live with your mother and have not had a job in at least 2 years means that someone else is taking care of your basic needs.    The fact that you already said (a few weeks ago) that you are looking to earn money to take women out to dinner shows you don't NEED money, but you WANT money for luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you do not earn the money to take care of your basic needs, you need the moral fortitude to earn your own money for your own luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> you make up your own stories, story teller.  we are discussing an amount less than the minimum wage to actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, as I recall you want $14 an hour if the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour.
> 
> Once again, you need to earn your own money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> since when is the minimum wage "luxurious", story teller?
> 
> why does the right wing not have enough moral fortitude and complain about mere minimum wages for the Poor but not maximum wages for the Rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when did I say the minimum wage is luxurious?    I didn't.
> 
> The state paying you for your luxuries is what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  with a Minimum wage instead of a Maximum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:
> 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,
> 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,
> 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you should strive to be Good and not Bad, right winger.  that is the "gospel Truth" way.
Click to expand...


You sound like you are quite happy to have a minimum wage without working over a maximum wage and have a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law and should be challenged in every at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal."????     That is bullshit.    YOur goal is to be able to spend money on luxuries without having to get a job.
Click to expand...

lol.  that is Your story not my story.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is equal protection under the law.    And since you can be terminated for any or no reason, being terminated for cause is the same result.
> 
> 
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal."????     That is bullshit.    YOur goal is to be able to spend money on luxuries without having to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is Your story not my story.
Click to expand...


According to what you have posted on USMB, it is your story.    Of course, you lying on here is not unheard of.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so is being able to quit for no reason or any reason and collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal."????     That is bullshit.    YOur goal is to be able to spend money on luxuries without having to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is Your story not my story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what you have posted on USMB, it is your story.    Of course, you lying on here is not unheard of.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  The right wing and You, are much bigger liars than me.  I really do have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice, and that makes me the most moral if not the most holy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if the state were to pay for the employer's loss of a laborer.
> 
> 
> 
> The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal.  I am advocating for a general tax that everyone with an income could contribute to.  It could be collected at point of sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The way and means for an more equitable of ensuring capital circulates is the goal."????     That is bullshit.    YOur goal is to be able to spend money on luxuries without having to get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is Your story not my story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to what you have posted on USMB, it is your story.    Of course, you lying on here is not unheard of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  The right wing and You, are much bigger liars than me.  I really do have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice, and that makes me the most moral if not the most holy.
Click to expand...


Holy???    LMAO!!!    That is hilarious!!

How old are you, Daniel??   I think you lying pretty much takes the "holy" out of it.

And mooching off of others instead of taking care of yourself?    Is that a "holy" act?

Your lower numbers and least amount of practice, since it is not of your own free will, only makes you pathetic.  Not holy.


----------



## danielpalos

You tell nothing but stories, story teller. 

We should bear true witness to our own laws.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.



I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
Click to expand...

you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.  

Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
Click to expand...


You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.

As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
Click to expand...

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.

If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.

How old are you, Daniel?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell nothing but stories, story teller.
> 
> We should bear true witness to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
Click to expand...

it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.  

With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.

In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.
> 
> How old are you, Daniel?


old enough win my arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tell stories???    How old are you, Daniel?    Answer that before you accuse me of stories.
> 
> 
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
Click to expand...


Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.

Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.

As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.

And let's look at your budget.

Rent - $600
Utilities - $100
Cell Phone - $85
Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
Car Insurance $50
Gasoline $150
Car Payment $250
Internet $100

That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.

Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.
> 
> How old are you, Daniel?
> 
> 
> 
> old enough win my arguments.
Click to expand...


Really?   You haven't yet.   Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.

Why won't you answer a simply question?     Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need valid arguments not gossip.  you only know how to stereotype and gossip.  you have nothing but ad hominems.
> 
> Promoting the general welfare must include solving simple poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
Click to expand...

People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.
> 
> How old are you, Daniel?
> 
> 
> 
> old enough win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   You haven't yet.   Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.
> 
> Why won't you answer a simply question?     Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?
Click to expand...

that isn't the question you asked, before.  

it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
Click to expand...


So you want to


danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have continually called me a liar, and yet refuse to point out any lies (stories) I have told.  That is an ad hominem.   Your accusations are pure ad hominem, and only used to avoid a subject you do not wish to discuss.
> 
> As for "solving poverty", it depends on whether you define poverty as unable to take care of your own basic needs or as simply being poor.   Welfare takes care of the former, and the latter is only solved by the individual's effort.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
Click to expand...

 
So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.

Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.
> 
> How old are you, Daniel?
> 
> 
> 
> old enough win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   You haven't yet.   Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.
> 
> Why won't you answer a simply question?     Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that isn't the question you asked, before.
> 
> it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.
Click to expand...


A slight rewording of the question, while not changing the meaning, does not change your refusal to answer.

I say you are much younger than you claimed to be when you opened your account here at USMB.   

Simple question.    How old are you?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner solves simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...

It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, when I have asked how old you are, you have never answered.    This leaves the age you listed on your profile page as the only answer you have offered.   If that age is a lie, as I believe it is, each time you refuse to asnwer my question is basically another lie.
> 
> How old are you, Daniel?
> 
> 
> 
> old enough win my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   You haven't yet.   Unless you count the "I won because I say I won", which sounds more like a child than an adult.
> 
> Why won't you answer a simply question?     Why would you have such low numbers and lack of experience if you are 56 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that isn't the question you asked, before.
> 
> it must be a matter of principle, in some cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A slight rewording of the question, while not changing the meaning, does not change your refusal to answer.
> 
> I say you are much younger than you claimed to be when you opened your account here at USMB.
> 
> Simple question.    How old are you?
Click to expand...

i say you have lousy arguments and lousy, "male intuition".  are you sure you are male?


----------



## Dan Stubbs

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done the research to see what percentage of the population can be supported by your "unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed"?   How many people can opt out of working before there is not enough tax money to support the program?
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
Click to expand...

*Ever hear of the Global Citizen movement? *


----------



## Dan Stubbs

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
Click to expand...

*I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Stubbs said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> higher paid labor pays more in taxes and create more in demand.  and, by solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, more money will be circulating and can be taxed in a more general manner to achieve more economical results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, higher pay for labor means you have a job.   That is not part of this discussion.
> 
> Second of all, circulating money after spending money to remove it from one person and giving it to another does not increase the amount of money.  It decreases it.   Sure, one group gains a certain amount of money.   But another group loses more than that group gains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only if you understand nothing about economics.  higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher paid labor is not the issue.   I am all for that.   But that means you have to get a job to make that money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ever hear of the Global Citizen movement? *
Click to expand...

The left is working toward solving simple poverty through equal application of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party, for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

Dan Stubbs said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor?    Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
Click to expand...

we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> 
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the person will need financial assistance for more than 6 months, welfare is the market friendly answer.
> 
> If the person will be unemployed for long, they will also need health insurance.  Something unemployment compensation does not provide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare.  that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
Click to expand...


So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?    

I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be obvious if you understood economics.  only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor.
> 
> With unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, any adult could obtain catastrophic forms of insurance, if they want.
> 
> In the long run however, engendering greater stability in markets can help the private sector optimize for better products at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
Click to expand...

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
Click to expand...

they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> 
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment of "only capital must circulate under capitalism not labor" has no bearing on what you quoted nor anything I have said.
> 
> Welfare is designed for long term use, not just 6 months.  That would provide greater stability in markets, along with health insurance which prevents medical facilities and hospitals having to write off billions of dollars of unpaid bills.
> 
> As for purchasing catastrophic forms of health insurance, that is not going to help much.    I did a quick Google search for catastrophic health insurance policies.    Some of them were pretty cheap.  At least the premiums.  They run between $100 a month and $175 a month.    However, most have a $5,000.00 deductible.  Which means they don't pay anything until you have spent $5k.     Since $14 an hour/40 hour a week equivalent only nets you $1,982.80 a month (if you live in a state with no state income tax), you will be unable to use that health insurance at all.
> 
> And let's look at your budget.
> 
> Rent - $600
> Utilities - $100
> Cell Phone - $85
> Groceries & Sundries - $500 (eating cheap)
> Car Insurance $50
> Gasoline $150
> Car Payment $250
> Internet $100
> 
> That will mean you spend $1,835.00 a month.    Leaving you just $147.80 a month to pay your insurance and deductible.    Not going to work at all.  Especially if you spend money going out to eat.
> 
> Now the welfare check will be less than the $14 an hour.   But you also get food stamps, which are not taxed, either as income or at the point of sale.   YOu also get health insurance at no cost, with no deductible.   And there are job training programs available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
Click to expand...


Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.

Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.

Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
Click to expand...


With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> People will probably try to find a way to lower costs, if they allege to be good capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
Click to expand...

anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments. 

You simply manufacture stories, story teller.  

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This changes nothing about what I said.    Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries.    How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?
> 
> 
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
Click to expand...

you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.   

solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to
> So you lock people in, in the hopes that prices will come down?    Then they will have to choose between paying a bill and paying for their medication?   Good plan.
> 
> Just use welfare programs to solve for the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> 
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted?    I am happy to explain or clarify.   Something you refuse to do.    Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I used the Unemployment system once when I returned from Korea back 66 years ago. or so. *
> 
> 
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...



Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.

With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.

You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?

What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about simplification.  Unemployment compensation only needs to solve simple poverty not complicated poverty.  It doesn't get any simpler in an at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted?    I am happy to explain or clarify.   Something you refuse to do.    Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".
Click to expand...

i am still trying to dumb it down for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we should have no homeless on the street in any at-will employment State in our First World economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...

lol.  

i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference between simple poverty and complicated poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> 
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is incoherent about the post you quoted?    I am happy to explain or clarify.   Something you refuse to do.    Unless you can point at what is incoherent, I am just going to go with "Daniel can't formulate and argument so he makes up bullshit".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am still trying to dumb it down for the right wing.
Click to expand...


No you are not.  You are being deliberately obtuse.    You want to be right, so your fantasy about unemployment compensation will come true.   Then you can have whatever your state pays for unemployment as luxury spending money.

But offering money will not solve all the problems with the homeless.   Giving them foodstamps that they cannot spend on drugs or alcohol and access to medical treatments can do more than just money can.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that we have at-will employment means no mental illness and no serious substance abuse problems?
> 
> I have told you over and over and over that the majority of homeless people have either or both of those categories.   I even posted a link addressing that.
> 
> 
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
Click to expand...


And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.

*With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.

*With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.  

*With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.


And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, is a simple solution to that simple form of poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
Click to expand...

You are the only one claiming that is the case. 

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> 
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
Click to expand...


Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.

Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
"It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."

Now let's boldface some points you missed.

It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.

People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.

The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare is more efficient and more complete.   It is a better solution.    And without drastically changing both programs.
> 
> Unemployment compensation cannot do anything that welfare programs cannot.    But welfare programs can do a lot that unemployment compensation cannot.
> 
> Why muddy the waters and open up a good working program for fraud when there is no need.
> 
> 
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?   

Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?


----------



## WinterBorn

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they should still not be on the street.  we have camp grounds for that.  with recourse to an income, private health services can be more proactive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
Click to expand...


Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
Click to expand...

You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> You simply manufacture stories, story teller.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can solve simple poverty.  Our alleged war on poverty has not done what You claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
Click to expand...

That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.

i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> With welfare they have a recourse to an income, and a recourse to food stamps which cannot be used to buy alcohol or drugs. And there is medical care available to help them with mental health and substance abuse issues.    Camp grounds?   Who will pay the fees for that?   Will you provide them with tents, sleeping bags ect?
> 
> 
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
Click to expand...

Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
Click to expand...


I have alleged no such thing.

I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are claiming.    Existing welfare programs can do more and offer more than unemployment compensation.  But you insist that unemployment compensation will solve the problem?     That is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.
> 
> i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.
Click to expand...


The "ready reserve labor force" is not a military reserve.     There is absolutely no requirement, or even need, for a firearm.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to make sense, not just tell incoherent stories.
> 
> solving for a simple poverty of capital under capitalism, must solve for dilemmas in a market friendly manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
Click to expand...


And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insisting they cannot, is even More ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.
> 
> i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "ready reserve labor force" is not a military reserve.     There is absolutely no requirement, or even need, for a firearm.
Click to expand...

it was an analogy, story teller.  Aesop was much better.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you out.  I'll explain it carefully.
> 
> With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.
> With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.     Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.
> 
> You suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?    Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> What I wrote in the this post is neither a story nor is it incoherent.   And explains clearly why welfare serves the homeless far better than unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
Click to expand...

You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise. 

Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.   Not all of the problems that lead to poverty can be solved by giving them money.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.
> 
> i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "ready reserve labor force" is not a military reserve.     There is absolutely no requirement, or even need, for a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was an analogy, story teller.  Aesop was much better.
Click to expand...


So, since it was an analogy, what can you not afford in order to be part of the ready reserve labor force?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> i am suggesting solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner and let consumers participate in those markets they desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
Click to expand...


I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
Click to expand...

it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets. 

anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.  

There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.

It is about equal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one claiming that is the case.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what I am discussing.  It is about ensuring the ready reserve labor force can stay ready while in reserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.
> 
> i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "ready reserve labor force" is not a military reserve.     There is absolutely no requirement, or even need, for a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was an analogy, story teller.  Aesop was much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, since it was an analogy, what can you not afford in order to be part of the ready reserve labor force?
Click to expand...

"The tools to command a market based wage under our form of Capitalism."  

Ensuring full employment of capital resources means normal market activity should continue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I explained in three sentences why welfare programs work better.    You chose to ignore the truth.
> 
> *With welfare and unemployment compensation both offer a recourse to an income.  *
> Both offer an income.   With unemployment compensation, an income is all that is offered.   With welfare programs it is not.
> 
> *With welfare there are food stamps which provide food with no access to alcohol (or other drugs).   Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Food stamps provide food and not alcohol or drugs.  Someone with substance abuse issues would use money to buy drugs or alcohol.
> 
> *With welfare there is access to medical care, to help them with mental health issues and addictions.    Unemployment compensation does nothing like this.*
> Having access to medical care is important.   It gives them a way to get into programs to fight their addictions and to get mental healthcare.  Without addressing those issues, they will either end up back on the street or they will end up dead.    Giving an alcoholic or an addict money with no healthcare is giving them a death sentence.  Plus, depending on how long they have been living on the street, there are probably other health problems that have developed.
> 
> 
> And you suggested putting the homeless in campgrounds?  That won't work either.   Who will pay the fees?   Who will provide them with tents and sleeping bags?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
Click to expand...

you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   We have discussed homelessness at length.   Money is not the solution there.    In fact, as I explained, it could cause more damage and death.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is about people looking for jobs.    Not people wanting money from tax payers for luxuries.
> 
> Ready Reserve Labor Force?    Have you looked up what that means?
> "It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work and that the relative surplus population also includes people unable to work."
> 
> Now let's boldface some points you missed.
> 
> It refers to the unemployed and underemployed in capitalist society. It is synonymous with "industrial *reserve* army" or "relative surplus population", except that* the unemployed can be defined as those actually looking for work *and that the *relative surplus population also includes people unable to work*.
> 
> People looking for work may be given unemployment compensation.  That does not fit you, however.   Since you are not looking for work.
> 
> The relative surplus population includes people unable to work, which would mean they draw from the welfare programs and disability.
> 
> 
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you want to volunteer for the "ready reserve labor force" and sit idly by and draw a check while waiting to be "called up to active labor"?
> 
> Do you know the source of the term "ready reserve labor force"?
> 
> 
> 
> That is what being ready in reserve, means.  I cannot afford to purchase my own musket.  It must be a State or Union security issue.
> 
> i could be considering using the same caliber ammunition for my side arm and my long arm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "ready reserve labor force" is not a military reserve.     There is absolutely no requirement, or even need, for a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was an analogy, story teller.  Aesop was much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, since it was an analogy, what can you not afford in order to be part of the ready reserve labor force?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The tools to command a market based wage under our form of Capitalism."
> 
> Ensuring full employment of capital resources means normal market activity should continue.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean like marketable skills which employers might want and would be willing to pay top dollar to employ.  I understand.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Daniel, you are better off hitting the "Funny" icon than actually trying to address what I said.   For the homeless, welfare programs are more effective and efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.

But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are alleging there is Any requirement to work in Any at-will employment State.  Can you show me Any express State law in an at-will employment State that defines employment relationships, that says otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solving for simple poverty through the Government and fiscal and lawful Command of the public sector, can only improve market participation for the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
Click to expand...

Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.  

Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have alleged no such thing.
> 
> I have simply reminded you of the definition of the natural rate of unemployment.     And that is that the person is actively seeking work.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.

There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the long term solution for simple poverty is the various welfare programs, not unemployment compensation.    But you want to wreck both programs because of the means tests.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
Click to expand...


Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.

Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement to actively seek work in Any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
Click to expand...

just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no valid argument that demonstrates any understanding of economics.  A fine and wonderful and capital solution to a natural rate of unemployment must be Good and not Bad.  You have no valid argument that says otherwise.
> 
> Simplifying Government can only lead to greater efficiencies and lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
Click to expand...

It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said there was.    I simply pointed out that when you use the phrase "capitalisms natural rate of unemployment", you are referring to people who are actively seeking employment.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
Click to expand...


So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown, over and over, that the welfare programs have more to offer, provide more solutions, and are generally more efficient at solving for simple poverty, especially as a solution to the plight of the homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about increasing market participation to ensure "full employment of capital resources" in our markets.
> 
> anyone who is naturally unemployed should be able to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.
> 
> There is no at-will basis for Any for-cause, conditional requirements in any at-will employment State.
> 
> It is about equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
Click to expand...

The law is, employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you only make up stories, story teller.  our alleged war on poverty is Proof of that failed and Costly policy.  We need fine and wonderful and capital solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
Click to expand...

Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is already equal protection under the law.    If someone is unemployed (I have no idea how someone is naturally or unnaturally unemployed) they will qualify for welfare programs easier.
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


Welfare provides a better solution than perpetual unemployment compensation, regardless of the reason for being unemployed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.    Neither program alone, and as they currently stand, will solve all of the problems.
> 
> But expanding welfare programs is much easier than the massive changes you want to make.    And since welfare provides money, food, healthcare, job training and even daycare in some situations, while unemployment compensation only provide money, it is much better for solving those complex problems in efficient ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


You keep pressing to have unemployment compensation drastically changed to provide for the 3% or 4% of the working population that is part of the natural rate of unemployment and still seeking a job.

Your plan requires the following:
1) Changing the rules for who is allowed to draw unemployment.   In essence, to not hold anyone responsible for their choices to quit or break the rules/law.
2) Change the amount of time a person can draw unemployment from 6 months to forever.
3) Change the source of the unemployment compensation from a business tax to a general tax that everyone pays.
4) Since there is no need to contact the previous employers, you would want some other method to prevent fraud, but no means test allowed.
5) You want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour.
6) You want the unemployment compensation amount to be set by the federal gov't instead of the states, and have it just $1 below the $15 minimum wage.
7) You want health insurance companies to lower their rates to allow people on long term unemployment to be able to afford insurance.
8) Have the welfare programs and the unemployment compensation program connected to make sure no one draws both, since they are now both long term.

A logical plan requires the following:
1) Expand the welfare programs to include more poor and homeless people.


Which do you think makes more sense?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Poor incels don't understand that being an asshole isn't a good way to make friends.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection of the law in this case means being able to qualify for unemployment compensation, for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
Click to expand...

nice story.  

it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare provides a better solution than perpetual unemployment compensation, regardless of the reason for being unemployed.
Click to expand...

Welfare is means tested.  That means it Must be less efficient than solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment in a market friendly manner.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged War on Poverty proves you still don't have it right.
> 
> Solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, solves for an actual economic phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pressing to have unemployment compensation drastically changed to provide for the 3% or 4% of the working population that is part of the natural rate of unemployment and still seeking a job.
> 
> Your plan requires the following:
> 1) Changing the rules for who is allowed to draw unemployment.   In essence, to not hold anyone responsible for their choices to quit or break the rules/law.
> 2) Change the amount of time a person can draw unemployment from 6 months to forever.
> 3) Change the source of the unemployment compensation from a business tax to a general tax that everyone pays.
> 4) Since there is no need to contact the previous employers, you would want some other method to prevent fraud, but no means test allowed.
> 5) You want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour.
> 6) You want the unemployment compensation amount to be set by the federal gov't instead of the states, and have it just $1 below the $15 minimum wage.
> 7) You want health insurance companies to lower their rates to allow people on long term unemployment to be able to afford insurance.
> 8) Have the welfare programs and the unemployment compensation program connected to make sure no one draws both, since they are now both long term.
> 
> A logical plan requires the following:
> 1) Expand the welfare programs to include more poor and homeless people.
> 
> 
> Which do you think makes more sense?
Click to expand...

A simplification of the rules is what makes it cost effective, along with eliminating our current regime taxation in favor of a general tax.


----------



## danielpalos

WheelieAddict said:


> Poor incels don't understand that being an asshole isn't a good way to make friends.


"do Alpha Males not need friends"?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not become true by you simply saying it over and over.
> 
> There is equal protection under the law.    You quit or get fired for breaking the rules or the law, and you don't get paid.    The employer, by the same token, does not continue to get labor if he fires you or you quit.
> 
> 
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
Click to expand...


If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do.   Look at the number of deaths and illnesses due to starvation and malnutrition in the Great Depression.   And look at the number now.
> 
> Could it be better?    Sure!    So we expand it and make it better.   We don't trash both systems because you don't like the means test and you want money for luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about solving for simple poverty through equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, as I have explained, money alone will not solve simple poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it must for the ready reserve labor force under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pressing to have unemployment compensation drastically changed to provide for the 3% or 4% of the working population that is part of the natural rate of unemployment and still seeking a job.
> 
> Your plan requires the following:
> 1) Changing the rules for who is allowed to draw unemployment.   In essence, to not hold anyone responsible for their choices to quit or break the rules/law.
> 2) Change the amount of time a person can draw unemployment from 6 months to forever.
> 3) Change the source of the unemployment compensation from a business tax to a general tax that everyone pays.
> 4) Since there is no need to contact the previous employers, you would want some other method to prevent fraud, but no means test allowed.
> 5) You want to raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour.
> 6) You want the unemployment compensation amount to be set by the federal gov't instead of the states, and have it just $1 below the $15 minimum wage.
> 7) You want health insurance companies to lower their rates to allow people on long term unemployment to be able to afford insurance.
> 8) Have the welfare programs and the unemployment compensation program connected to make sure no one draws both, since they are now both long term.
> 
> A logical plan requires the following:
> 1) Expand the welfare programs to include more poor and homeless people.
> 
> 
> Which do you think makes more sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simplification of the rules is what makes it cost effective, along with eliminating our current regime taxation in favor of a general tax.
Click to expand...


Simplification?   One plan requires at least 8 major changes to the system.   The other requires 1.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor incels don't understand that being an asshole isn't a good way to make friends.
> 
> 
> 
> "do Alpha Males not need friends"?
Click to expand...


Being an Alpha Male does not require being an asshole.    In fact, a Beta Male will often be an asshole to make up for his own (real or perceived) shortcomings.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because you say it over and over doesn't mean it is just, merely our current regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
Click to expand...

Your story is your own. 

In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the govt will provide you with an income without w I taking, will it provide the exact employer labor without the employer paying them?    Equal protection, remember.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".

You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
Click to expand...

what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?

employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.

the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.    But you keep talking about how, in order to have equal protection under the law, the gov't should pay you after you voluntarily quit.   In other words, the gov't should provide what you got for your labor, without you having to offer said labor.     Equal protection under the law would mean the gov't would provide the employer what he got for his paying the employee, without having to pay an employee.
> 
> 
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
Click to expand...


I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.

This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice story.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law and not denying or disparaging labor, due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. 

Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you continue to preach that it is about equal protection under the law, and insist that people who quit a job continue to get paid, equal protection means the employer is afforded the same protection.    You do not want that.
> 
> 
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
Click to expand...


Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.  

You want to be the "happy worker"?   Have a skill you enjoy doing that someone will pay you for.   Otherwise, you work and enjoy the fruits of your labor if you can't enjoy the labor.  

This whole "if you're not happy, quit your job" is a childish ideal.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your story is your own.
> 
> In this case, equal protection of the means labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
Click to expand...

You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.  

Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not equal protection under the law.    That is protecting the employee and saying "crew the employer".
> 
> You, the employee, get paid.   Which is normally what you get for your labor.   If you get paid without giving labor, what does the employer get?
> 
> 
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.  

You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what alternate universe does your story apply to, story teller?
> 
> employment is at the will of either party; if labor quits they should be eligible for unemployment compensation.
> 
> the employer benefits by simply having more efficient labor force actually working Because they want to, not Because they Have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
Click to expand...

Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the real world.   The alternate reality you live in, apparently, thinks the employee gets protection under the law but the employer does not.    That is not equal protection under the law.
> 
> This pie-in-the-sky nonsense about only "happy employees" work is simply not how things work.    If you want money for luxuries like taking women out to dinner, you have to DO something besides sit on your ass.   You have to offer someone something worth paying you for.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.     

And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Only the right wing has a problem promoting and providing for the general welfare but not the general warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.

Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
Click to expand...

thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
Click to expand...

Buying more tents for Americans?


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
Click to expand...

it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.

Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, providing for the general welfare.   That does not mean someone can "opt out of working" and get the same financial benefits as those who work.
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
Click to expand...


Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
"An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."

But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.

And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.  

Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.


----------



## Vastator

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
Click to expand...

You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.


----------



## WinterBorn

I believe the United States has a duty to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.    But that is about meeting needs, not providing luxuries.  What Daniel wants is luxuries.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make up your own stories, story teller.  Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade.
> 
> Socialism may require the coercive use of force not true capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Click to expand...

LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
Click to expand...

what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about voluntary transactions.  And forced taking of money from the person who earned it and giving it to one who does no work and provides nothing in return.
> 
> You talk of mutually beneficial trade.   But someone has to give up earned money so you can have luxuries, while you provide nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
Click to expand...


Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.

And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.

Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago Detroit Camden Oakland St. Louis all run by democrats
> 
> 
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
Click to expand...


No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.

What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?

Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?

As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you understand nothing about economics.  Simply circulating money is doing something under Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Click to expand...

lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
Click to expand...

The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.


----------



## Erinwltr

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
Click to expand...




WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank goodness for a federal doctrine, once California pioneers that new, "economic technology".
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
Click to expand...


daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you want to make that the case.   But when you use the govt to take the money and give it away, you lose value.
> 
> And since you produce nothing and provide no service, you are simply a taker.   Taking $100 and circulating $75 is not good for the market.  Having $100 and circulating $100 is good for the market.    You have no right to the earnings of another.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
Click to expand...


I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.

And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.

You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
Click to expand...


And you, the employee, get the exact same thing without getting paid if you quit or are fired for breaking the rules or laws.  So it is already equal protection under the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

Erinwltr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
Click to expand...


Daniel is just like so many other children who don't want to grow up.   He lives with his mother, who provides for his needs, and he wants money for luxuries but refuses to get a job and work.   His philosophy of "only happy workers should be working" speaks volumes about him.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.  frivolous stories is all they have.
> 
> Definition of multiplier effect | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
Click to expand...

simply because You say so?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, the employee, get the exact same thing without getting paid if you quit or are fired for breaking the rules or laws.  So it is already equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

he doesn't get paid a market wage but compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

Erinwltr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buying more tents for Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
Click to expand...

Men have arguments not just gossip.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the multiplier effect.    Here is the definition you posted the link to:
> "An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity."
> 
> But all of those multipier effects involve people spending and working.    And the gov't does not operate in a vacuum.   It costs to take money from all those people, combine it, separate it out and give it to those who need it.    So if you take $100, you do not have $100 being multiplied.    So if the money is not taken, but left in the hands of those who earned it, the multiplier effect is much greater.
> 
> And the money taken in taxes should only be given to those who need it.  Not those who refuse to work because they are not happy working.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because You say so?
Click to expand...


No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> ...how serious can women be if they refuse to make an appointment?  Can a bible be right.  Out of all them, none of them were really really serious enough to make appointments?



You ignorant non-gettin' laid sumbitch! STFU!

The Bible is right, I could get laid more if I didn't follow the rules, but that's the stuff Maury and Jerry Springer are made of.

One time, my girl had me go and help move a friend of her's furniture. I was sweating bullets because I done fucked every girl there and there was 4 of them. I got paranoid, if they get together, I'm toast.

It didn't happen.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> 
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, the employee, get the exact same thing without getting paid if you quit or are fired for breaking the rules or laws.  So it is already equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he doesn't get paid a market wage but compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


Back to this?   I asked what the employer gets that is equal to the employee getting an income with no expended labor, and you answer, "The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get".     The law is employment is at the will of either party is what you get as well.   That is equality and equal protection under the law.     

You keep talking about workers not getting paid a market wage.   And yet you want to take some of that below market wage, that they get for their labor, so that you do not have to work and can have luxuries like taking women out to dinner (in the hopes of getting laid).  I have news for you, you don't get to live off your mother AND get money from other people's taxes.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> 
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equality and equal protection of the law not right wing bigotry.
> 
> Persons should be able to apply for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Only "wage-slave" States deny and disparage that individual liberty and natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
Click to expand...


And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?

Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  did you miss the positive multiplier effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
Click to expand...

no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.


----------



## danielpalos

it is about solving simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute nonsense.    I am not talking about "wage-slave" crap.    I am talking about using the gov't to provide for the employee and not the employer.  That is not equality nor is it equal protection under the law.   If you quit, you should not get something while the employer is simply deprived of something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Click to expand...

lol.  employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss my entire post?    To tax and redistribute the money costs money.  So less gets used in the multiplier effect.    Having $100 in the multiplier is better than having $75 in the multiplier effect.
> 
> And again, taking tax dollar for those who need it is one thing.  Taking tax money for those who just want it for luxuries is completely different.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an inccome without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
Click to expand...


Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.

Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?


----------



## Marion Morrison

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
Click to expand...


danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you describe has nothing to do with the concept of employment at will.  appeals to ignorance is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   You are free to "opt out of working".  That means you opted out of a paycheck.   You do not have a right to someone else's money for your luxuries.


----------



## Marion Morrison

No work, no BJ, motherfucker! Straight up, danielpalos has probably never even gotten that far.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you need a valid economic argument not just stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
Click to expand...

lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party.   That is what employers get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I describe is your effort to screw over the employers in the name of equality and equal protection.
> 
> What equal protection do employers get?   You get an income without working.  What do they get?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> As Vastator said, "You don’t have a “natural right” to unearned income.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You are free to "opt out of working".  That means you opted out of a paycheck.   You do not have a right to someone else's money for your luxuries.
Click to expand...

there is no work require possible in an at-will employment State.  only wage-slave States, do that.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
Click to expand...


Fuck "social justice", pay that girl for services rendered or get beat up, punk.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> No work, no BJ, motherfucker! Straight up, danielpalos has probably never even gotten that far.


unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, 

so women can get paid!


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck "social justice", pay that girl for services rendered or get beat up, punk.
Click to expand...

i need equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so women won't get in trouble.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No work, no BJ, motherfucker! Straight up, danielpalos has probably never even gotten that far.
> 
> 
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed,
> 
> so women can get paid!
Click to expand...

I tell you what, if a hooker came to me and said you stiffed her? I'd beat your ass for being a piece of shit.

(If I knew and trusted the hooker)
I'm not her pimp or anything, I'd do it on the house. You got life fucked up, bro.
Same way I got a friend of mine's mom's car back from a crackhead. I ripped his shirt and the next step was beating him to a pulp if he didn't give up the vehicle.
He realized I meant business. I got it back for her.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given valid arguments.   You chose to ignore them for selfish reasons.
> 
> And it is you who needs a valid argument.    A valid reason why you are entitled to an income without working, while others must work to provide it for you.
> 
> You need a valid reason why you should enjoy the fruits of other people's labors, while you do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
Click to expand...


I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.

YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.

Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
Click to expand...


No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> 
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You are free to "opt out of working".  That means you opted out of a paycheck.   You do not have a right to someone else's money for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no work require possible in an at-will employment State.  only wage-slave States, do that.
Click to expand...


Correct.  There is no requirement that you work.   But work is how you earn a living.   If you could not provide for yourself, I would be in favor of tax dollars taking care of your basic needs.    But you CAN work.  You simply choose not to.   By choosing not to work, you lose the income that working provides.


----------



## Soupnazi630

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> daniel is a special needs USMB poster.  You are way over his head.
> 
> 
> 
> Men have arguments not just gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your arguments are juvenile and pathetic.   You basically want to sit at home, have your mother take care of your basic needs and get money from other people's taxes so you can play.     Here is a novel idea, why not get a job and help your mother pay the bills?
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  employment is at the will of either party not wage-slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   You are free to "opt out of working".  That means you opted out of a paycheck.   You do not have a right to someone else's money for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no work require possible in an at-will employment State.  only wage-slave States, do that.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a wage slave and all states have work and employment


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No work, no BJ, motherfucker! Straight up, danielpalos has probably never even gotten that far.
> 
> 
> 
> unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed,
> 
> so women can get paid!
Click to expand...


Paid for what?    For fucking you?    I will admit it would take a significant amount for most women to submit to that.    But unless you work you don't get paid.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck "social justice", pay that girl for services rendered or get beat up, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i need equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, so women won't get in trouble.
Click to expand...


So if you don't get something, women will get in trouble?    That sounds ominously like a threat of rape.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos needs to get a fucking life. Oh yeah, and a real job.
I can pay hookers every day if I want to.

I don't. That's not God's way.
I do make my money, though. Enough to pay for hookers or whatever I want.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply because You say so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
Click to expand...

dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
Click to expand...


Sit on your ass and no money or sex for you. Sucks to be you. 

I can do whatever I want. I'm not demanding women service me because I am, like a petulant child that never had any discipline, that's nuts! Be a man and go out and make some money.
Then you have options.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your game.    YOu need a valid reason because the people who earned the money deserve to keep more of it, without having their money taken to pay for luxuries for someone who refuses to lift a finger for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
Click to expand...


dear, stop making up what you thing that means.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
Click to expand...


Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.

If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
Click to expand...


Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sit on your ass and no money or sex for you. Sucks to be you.
> 
> I can do whatever I want. I'm not demanding women service me because I am, like a petulant child that never had any discipline, that's nuts! Be a man and go out and make some money.
> Then you have options.
Click to expand...

lol.  isn't capitalism wonderful when you have enough capital.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, that is your game.  it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
Click to expand...

dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
Click to expand...

Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
Click to expand...

lol.  

why is that, dear?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really have to go back and find all the times you used the "because I said so" argument?    You certainly can't find any posts where I said that.
> 
> Oh, so now it is social laws and social justice?      What does social justice say about you demanding to have money taken from people who earn it and given to you for luxuries?    Is that what you call justice?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
Click to expand...


I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?

Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?

YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?

No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.

Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
Click to expand...


You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.

Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos : You have to pay the hookers, yes you do. You are not special, bitch. They perform a service and deserve compensation. Tell me again how you'd like to work for no money?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
Click to expand...


"allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
Click to expand...


Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
Click to expand...


"weapons-grade stupid & lazy".     I like that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is your story.  my story is about compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> i like my story better.  left wing bigotry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
Click to expand...

You simply make up your own stories. 

Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
Click to expand...

lol.  

it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of our social laws in the name of social justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
Click to expand...

any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
Click to expand...

what does that mean for employers?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do like your story better.  In your story you get to collect other people's money and not work.   But that is not how the system works.
> 
> YOu want compensation for capitalisms natural rate of unemployment, even though you voluntarily quit your job and have not looked for another one?  No.   Just no.
> 
> Your basic needs are taken care of by your family.    You don't get free money to spend on luxuries, just because you want it.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
Click to expand...


I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.

"wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
Click to expand...


It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.   You don't want social justice or equality.    You want to lay around doing nothing and still collect a check.   That's not how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
Click to expand...


It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop being repugnant to State law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
Click to expand...

why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?

your understanding of economics, is nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
Click to expand...

advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work every day and get BJs every day if you want. If you don't wanna work and make money, you ain't gettin' a damn thing, dumbass!
> Chances are hella slim you'll run across a nymphomaniac that might fuck you every now and then, maybe, sometimes, and even then, you're feeding her sickness, is that right?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
Click to expand...


It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law is in our Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.
Click to expand...

lol.  you make up stories, story teller. 

i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time those of the opposing view, call me on it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop making up what you thing that means.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.

What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation is a better solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
Click to expand...

it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
Click to expand...


If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, stop pretending you know anything about the concepts we are discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown you are clueless about the things you post, and you want me to stop pretending?
> 
> Your version of equality is you getting a check and the employer getting screwed.  But I know nothing?
> 
> YOu want to live of other people's taxes, and cannot draw welfare because of the means test (because your mother pays for your basic needs) so you demand unemployment compensation.  Despite the fact you voluntarily quit your last job and have not tried to get another one.  And I am the one who knows nothing?
> 
> No Daniel, you are the one who are pretending you know anything about the concepts.   Or maybe you do know something about economics and just ignore what you know because you want a check for luxuries while you do nothing.
> 
> Why are you entitled to an income without working, when others have to work to provide it for you?
> 
> 
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
Click to expand...


lol, you're a loser, get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
Click to expand...

that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  And you have equal protection under the law.   That does not mean that you can quit your job, thereby depriving the employer of your labor, and you still draw a check.
> 
> If you want to be a free man, you have  to take responsibility for the consequences of your choices.  You chose to quit your job.  The consequence is not getting paid.
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you make up stories, story teller.
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time those of the opposing view, call me on it.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!    YOu still make that claim?   That is hilarious.   Funny, you have never been able to point to a single logical fallacy, and yet you claim I post them all the time.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simple make up your own stories.
> 
> Employees could quit on better terms with their employers, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Not having to deal with wage-slaves is better for any employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
Click to expand...

lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those who opt out of working and still want to get paid.   For the rest of us it is not a good solution.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
Click to expand...


They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.

How can they litigate in an at-will state?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the law right wingers.  Don't be hypocrites and blame the least wealthy for allegedly being lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you make up stories, story teller.
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time those of the opposing view, call me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOu still make that claim?   That is hilarious.   Funny, you have never been able to point to a single logical fallacy, and yet you claim I post them all the time.
Click to expand...

lol.  funny how you have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are weapons-grade stupid and lazy.
> 
> Don't ask me to feel sorry for you if you can't get laid.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


No, it does not.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "allegedly"???    You quit your last job a few years ago, and have refused to get another one.   YOu want money and sex, but refuse to work at all.   I'd call that a textbook definition of lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you make up stories, story teller.
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time those of the opposing view, call me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOu still make that claim?   That is hilarious.   Funny, you have never been able to point to a single logical fallacy, and yet you claim I post them all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  funny how you have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> 
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
Click to expand...


I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have left a few jobs, usually by putting in notice.   I never had any problems with my employers.  In fact, on two occasions I went back to work for them.
> 
> "wage-slaves" is a nonsense term.
> 
> 
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
Click to expand...


Your claims of victory in these arguments is simply more proof of your delusions of adequacy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> why is that, dear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
Click to expand...

he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead. 

that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law, "johnny come lately".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  that is what at-will means.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any story teller can make up a story like that.  what is so special about yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Truth.   In a discussion with you that is special.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you make up stories, story teller.
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies, every time those of the opposing view, call me on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!    YOu still make that claim?   That is hilarious.   Funny, you have never been able to point to a single logical fallacy, and yet you claim I post them all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  funny how you have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

thanks for proving mine as well.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> 
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  that is what at-will means.
Click to expand...


danielfailosbot=idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
> Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.
Click to expand...

all it takes is lucre not good arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does capitalism have a natural rate of unemployment and why do we have any homelessness?
> 
> your understanding of economics, is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims of victory in these arguments is simply more proof of your delusions of adequacy.
Click to expand...

yours are more fanciful, story teller.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homelessness again?    I thought you dropped that topic after I shredded your, so called, solutions.
> 
> What does your refusal to even TRY to get a job have to do with the natural unemployment rate?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
> Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all it takes is lucre not good arguments.
Click to expand...

All it takes is get your ass a job, bitch!
Don't make sic my girl from the hood on ya, she knows the importance of working.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  that is what at-will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielfailosbot=idiot.
Click to expand...

you first, fuller of fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment State is a more economical solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
> Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all it takes is lucre not good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is get your ass a job, bitch!
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

all it takes is Ten simple Commandment from a God, not the Expense of Government.

why should i believe any thing You say, immoral false witness bearer?


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you're a loser, get a job.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
> Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all it takes is lucre not good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is get your ass a job, bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> all it takes is Ten simple Commandment from a God, not the Expense of Government.
> 
> why should i believe any thing You say, immoral false witness bearer?
Click to expand...


Point out where I bore false witness, you lazy piece of shit!


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you are a bigger loser for having nothing but fallacy and always losing your arguments to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I have cash on hand, bills are paid, food in my fridge, and I could hire hookers if I wanted to.
> Looking for something more permanent and less concerned about shopping for Prada. Pray for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all it takes is lucre not good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is get your ass a job, bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> all it takes is Ten simple Commandment from a God, not the Expense of Government.
> 
> why should i believe any thing You say, immoral false witness bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point out where I bore false witness, you lazy piece of shit!
Click to expand...

it is about bearing true witness to our equal protection laws.

the nine hundred ninety-nine may not have enough moral fortitude.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.


Capitalism?  

Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
Click to expand...


No real man invented socialism, faggot.

Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.

Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your version has you changing the unemployment compensation from a tax paid by businesses to a general tax, and has you collecting a check for nothing.  That means my tax dollars are going to pay for your luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
Click to expand...


Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.

He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
Click to expand...

nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does that mean for employers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
Click to expand...

nice story, story teller.  

https://www.cersnow.com/blog/the-average-employee-lawsuit-costs-250000how-safe-is-your-company/


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long to see you for what you are.
> 
> 
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  that is what at-will means.
Click to expand...


No, it does not.   It means that the employment relationship can be ended, for any reason, by either party.   If you quit or are fired for-cause, you get no compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> advocating for equal protection of the law in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were advocating for equal protection, I would agree with you.   You aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is Your story, story teller.  equal protection of the law means labor can quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  that is what at-will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.   It means that the employment relationship can be ended, for any reason, by either party.   If you quit or are fired for-cause, you get no compensation.
Click to expand...

that is not what at-will means.  

and, denial and disparagement of benefits should be up to a Court not an Employer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means they lose the labor for which they gave you a check, and their taxes go up because you want money for luxuries without having to work for it.
> 
> 
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
Click to expand...


Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!

First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.

Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.  
Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:

Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
Sexual Harassment
Retaliation
Whistleblower
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
Disabilities
Breach of Contract
Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
Invasion of Privacy
Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."

So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.  

From your link: 
"An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."

If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
Click to expand...


I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it means they don't have to deal with wage-slave who Have to work and may litigate if he fires them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
Click to expand...

i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant. 

The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
Click to expand...

it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't HAVE to work.  They work if they want or need money.
> 
> How can they litigate in an at-will state?
> 
> 
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
Click to expand...


At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.    But, if the conditions were wrong, then the business can be sued.   Much like you claiming that there can legally be no for-cause terminations (which is incorrect), there can terminations that are illegal even in an at-will employment state.

And your claim that offering unemployment compensation would eliminate such court costs is amusing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos: No job, no women will want to mess with you, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
Click to expand...


And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> he won't have to deal with them at all if they can simply apply for unemployment compensation instead.
> 
> that alone can save employers a lot of costs that would otherwise to court expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
Click to expand...

all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism?
> 
> Is it any wonder Man invented socialism and enabled the potentiality, of a Commune of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
Click to expand...

lol.  bunch of wo-men.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Court expenses?   First it goes before a Labor Board.   And those are usually dismissed.    If it goes to court there is usually something to the employee's complaints.
> 
> He won't have to deal with them?  lol   But he will have to deal with hiring new employees and paying higher taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> No real man invented socialism, faggot.
> 
> Karl Marx never worked a day in his life and was a couch crasher.
> 
> Now I've had to be a couch crasher, when teh old lady threw me out in the middle of the night even though I pay for everything.
> Lucky I had a good friend, with a woman that was also my friend. He's gone now, and I have no tolerance for bullshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice story, story teller.
> 
> The Average Employee Lawsuit costs $250,000…How Safe is your Company? - Cutting Edge Recruiting Solutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
Click to expand...

that is not equal protection of the law.  

you don't care, so why troll?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but stereotypes, story teller?  why not come up with some valid arguments, like real men. only wo-men need gossip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
Click to expand...

says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!    You used a link to back up your claim!!    What an amazing day!!
> 
> First of all, I did not say no one goes to court.  I said it went before the Labor Board first, and that most of those are dismissed.  And that hold up.    There are approximately 10,300,000 people working in Florida.   The 99,992 lawsuits brought account for around 1% of the employed people in the state.
> 
> Second of all, I said if these cases go to court, there is usually something to the employees complaints.
> Here are a list (from your link) of common employee claims:
> 
> Discrimination (based on race, sex, age, religion or other factors)
> Sexual Harassment
> Retaliation
> Whistleblower
> Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Promotion and Retention
> Disabilities
> Breach of Contract
> Emotional Distress & Mental Anguish
> Invasion of Privacy
> Plus there is this from your link "Plus, here’s something else to consider. Retaliation has become the #1 most frequently cited form of discrimination, beating out race discrimination."
> 
> So I was not telling stories.    However, your claim that the employer wouldn't have to deal with these complaints if the terminated employees could draw unemployment compensation is laughable.
> 
> From your link:
> "An average out of court settlement is about $40,000. In addition, 10 percent of wrongful termination and discrimination cases result in a $1 million dollar settlement. The majority of cases, about 67 percent, are ruled in the plaintiff’s favor when taken to litigation."
> 
> If the terminated employee thinks they will get $40,000 at a minimum and a possibility of $1 million, do you really think they will avoid suing if they can draw $275 a week in unemployment compensation?   (the amount comes from Florida FL Unemployment Eligibility)
> 
> 
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
Click to expand...


I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.

So what is unequal about the current at-will system?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a single stereotype in his post.    It would be nice, dear, if you would either give up these spurious accusations or have the balls to point out the actual examples of them.
> 
> 
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
Click to expand...


Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i actually understand economics.  i posted the link for the stubborn, ignorant.
> 
> The Point is, there would Be much less reason to complain on a truly at-will basis.  All of those exceptions to the rules are costly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
Click to expand...

the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it takes Manly balls to come up with superior arguments.  wo-men can gossip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.
Click to expand...

lol.  dear, you only have stories about good arguments.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> At-will means they can fire you at any time, for any or no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
Click to expand...


And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it takes no balls to make baseless accusations and refuse to defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, you only have stories about good arguments.
Click to expand...

YOu are such a tiresome little liar.

Tell us why you deserve to make a living doing nothing, and being paid from money taken from people who earn it?

And how old are you?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all Labor needs is equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
Click to expand...

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  bunch of wo-men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, you only have stories about good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOu are such a tiresome little liar.
> 
> Tell us why you deserve to make a living doing nothing, and being paid from money taken from people who earn it?
> 
> And how old are you?
Click to expand...

you are worse, story teller.  have you no shame.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is equal protection.   You can quit at any time.   That is the best you get.   Want money?   Get a job.  Want a job you enjoy?  Learn a skill at something you enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
Click to expand...


It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who makes baseless accusations, ignores facts, refuses to work, and demands the world support his desire for luxuries.
> 
> 
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, you only have stories about good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOu are such a tiresome little liar.
> 
> Tell us why you deserve to make a living doing nothing, and being paid from money taken from people who earn it?
> 
> And how old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are worse, story teller.  have you no shame.
Click to expand...


Correction, I have nothing to be ashamed of here.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is not equal protection of the law.
> 
> you don't care, so why troll?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
Click to expand...

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid.   I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  dear, you only have stories about good arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOu are such a tiresome little liar.
> 
> Tell us why you deserve to make a living doing nothing, and being paid from money taken from people who earn it?
> 
> And how old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are worse, story teller.  have you no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction, I have nothing to be ashamed of here.
Click to expand...

i have even less.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trolling.  I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.
> 
> So what is unequal about the current at-will system?
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
Click to expand...


Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the law is employment at the will of either party.  what one party can do, the other party can do equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
Click to expand...


Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that happens.   The employer can fire the employee at any time.   The employee can quit at any time.    That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
Click to expand...


You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
Click to expand...

lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
Click to expand...

not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't.
> 
> You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
Click to expand...


To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
Click to expand...

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?  

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the point and the argument.  I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
Click to expand...

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
Click to expand...


Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.

What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would be any different.  That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?
> 
> what do y'all, really really believe in?
Click to expand...


Believe?  When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact.   More money in means more money multiplied.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?
> 
> what do y'all, really really believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe?  When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact.   More money in means more money multiplied.
Click to expand...

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
Click to expand...


Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.    

Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!
> 
> 
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?
> 
> what do y'all, really really believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe?  When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact.   More money in means more money multiplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was nothing.   In fact, when you made that exact same statement before, I explained what I meant.

There is a cost for the gov't taking the money and redistributing it.    That cost is born by the people.    So if you take $100 from the tax payers (those who earned it) then the people who didn't earn it will only get around $75.    That is LESS.    Less money into the market means a lower return from the multiplier effect.


So are you going to tell us how ambitious you are?


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.

You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.

Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?

What makes you so special?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
Click to expand...

more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not under capitalism.  we merely need to circulate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?
> 
> what do y'all, really really believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe?  When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact.   More money in means more money multiplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was nothing.   In fact, when you made that exact same statement before, I explained what I meant.
> 
> There is a cost for the gov't taking the money and redistributing it.    That cost is born by the people.    So if you take $100 from the tax payers (those who earned it) then the people who didn't earn it will only get around $75.    That is LESS.    Less money into the market means a lower return from the multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> So are you going to tell us how ambitious you are?
Click to expand...

so what. with Your plan, most money will go to the Richest who will try to find a haven for it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?


lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.


----------



## danielpalos

i am "learning to love to Hammer the right wing."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people.   Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).
> 
> 
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
Click to expand...


Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?

And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?
> 
> what do y'all, really really believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe?  When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact.   More money in means more money multiplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was nothing.   In fact, when you made that exact same statement before, I explained what I meant.
> 
> There is a cost for the gov't taking the money and redistributing it.    That cost is born by the people.    So if you take $100 from the tax payers (those who earned it) then the people who didn't earn it will only get around $75.    That is LESS.    Less money into the market means a lower return from the multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> So are you going to tell us how ambitious you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what. with Your plan, most money will go to the Richest who will try to find a haven for it.
Click to expand...


In my plan money goes to people who earned it.   Yes, money is taxed.   But tax money should only be given to those who need it.   Not to support the luxuries of someone who simply chooses not to work.

I am fine with higher taxes on those who park their money in banks overseas.    But whatever else they do with their money is a) their choice, and b) still going to help the market.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> i am "learning to love to Hammer the right wing."



Really?   When will you start?


----------



## WinterBorn

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?



Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times. But you have never answered it.

You don't want to work. It is not as if you are incapable of working. You just don't want to.

Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?

What makes you so special?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?
> 
> People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
Click to expand...

The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am "learning to love to Hammer the right wing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   When will you start?
Click to expand...

lol.  don't worry.  just stay where you are, right winger.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times. But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work. It is not as if you are incapable of working. You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
Click to expand...

i have no idea what you are talking about.  your point of view has nothing to do with economics or the economic reality of a positive multiplier effect.  

You make up your own stories.

begging the question is also a fallacy.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I believe in capitalism.  But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.
> 
> What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
> You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
Click to expand...


Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am "learning to love to Hammer the right wing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   When will you start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  don't worry.  just stay where you are, right winger.
Click to expand...


Oh?   Ok, I will stay here.   I have stayed with my same argument since we started talking.   You haven't come close to hammering me.   Made me laugh, yes.  Hammered me?  No.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times. But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work. It is not as if you are incapable of working. You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have no idea what you are talking about.  your point of view has nothing to do with economics or the economic reality of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> You make up your own stories.
> 
> begging the question is also a fallacy.
Click to expand...


My question is not a "begging the question" fallacy.

You have stated that you want a check for being unemployed.    YOu have stated that you do not want to seek work, and have even denigrated people who work.   So you want to be paid by the gov't, out of tax money, and you don't want to work for it.   You have stated that you live with your Mom.   And you want to avoid a means test, because your needs are provided for by her.   So what ever money you get will be for luxuries, not needs.    In fact, you stated you were tring to get money so you could take women out to dinner.

I am asking you why you expect people to work so that you can get money for your luxuries and not work.

I am, once again, asking why you want money without working.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
Click to expand...


A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?


----------



## Agit8r

The good part, is they won't be passing on their DNA. Not in states with abortion access, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
Click to expand...

The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.
> 
> Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
Click to expand...


And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?

Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.   

Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
Click to expand...

dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
Click to expand...

Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance is required now.   Why would they bring the prices down when they can make more profits?
> 
> And, as I said, the health insurance need to be in place when the program starts.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
Click to expand...


Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.

And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.

Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.

And unemployment compensation cannot offer all that they need.   Just giving them money, without addressing the other issues, will likely do more harm than good.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times.  But you have never answered it.
> 
> You don't want to work.   It is not as if you are incapable of working.   You just don't want to.
> 
> Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?
> 
> What makes you so special?
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.

And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, insurance can afford better products at lower cost with more rather than less market participation by more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
Click to expand...

service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Because i am seeking redress of grievances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
Click to expand...

That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at a lower cost to the patient.  Medicare/Medicaid can provide the same care.   Don't pretend you are worried about tax money spent on this, when wasting tax dollars has been the problem with your entire plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
Click to expand...


And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A redress of grievances?   You don't have any grievances.   You QUIT your job.  You haven't looked for another job.   Why is that a grievance that the gov't should address?
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
Click to expand...


Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is exactly where some of the cost savings should show up, with Any competition under Any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
Click to expand...

they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at the will of either party, even for unemployment compensation; that IS equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if those insurance companies won't treat patients with pre-existing conditions?
> And if those insurance companies have high deductibles?
> 
> Plus the fact that it will take time for the costs to drop.  It will not be immediate.
> 
> Why is it that you want to get paid yourself, by the gov't, for quitting a job, but you want the private sector to help the homeless (the poorest of the poor) rather than having welfare programs do it?    Oh yeah, I forgot.  You want unemployment compensation for everyone, regardless of whether it is the best thing for them.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
Click to expand...


No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.

The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.

Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.   The equality is that you or your employer can end the relationship at any time.    You want to get more and not allow the employer anything additional.  That is NOT equality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?

No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the Point is, with recourse to an Income, more people can consume those products and services they may need. good capitalists know how to take advantage not Only of demand deposit relationships with cute bankers, but also time deposit relationships as well to save for some out of pocket expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, dear, it is.  Employment is at the will of either party, no questions asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
Click to expand...

Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because homeless people are smart consumers and know how to take advantage of banking practices ect.
> 
> And, with money in their pocket, they will no longer be a slave to the addictions that made them homeless to begin with?
> And the mentally ill, without treatment, will be good stewards of their money.
> 
> Absolute bullshit.    The homeless need a combination of welfare programs (welfare checks, low cost housing, food stamps and healthcare) in order to reenter the work force.
> 
> 
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  There are all sorts of questions to be asked, by both parties.
> 
> And if you want equality in that relationship, either both get something from the gov't when you quit or neither do.   Same when you are fired for cause.
> 
> 
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> service providers could bill them for as long as it takes, at lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
Click to expand...

i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is no longer employment at the will of either party and should be challenged by Labor, every time it comes up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.
Click to expand...

stop being frivolous, story teller. 

employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't pay the bill?    If they spend the money on something else, like...oh I don't know.....drugs or alcohol?
> 
> 
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
Click to expand...


Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is.    You are just mad because you don't get paid if you don't work.    Makes me wonder if you didn't quit the job thinking you could draw unemployment and found out you screwed up.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being frivolous, story teller.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.
Click to expand...


Employment is at the will of either party.   Unemployment compensation has simple rules.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have that problem now; you keep missing point.  More people means more revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
Click to expand...

means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Labor should still qualify for unemployment compensation at the will of either party; that IS, equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being frivolous, story teller.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.   Unemployment compensation has simple rules.
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law to simplify even further, those simple rules.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not missing the point.  You are ignoring the point in favor of trying to be right.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of homeless people have mental health issues or substance abuse issue.   That is the main reason they are where they are.   Expecting them to suddenly act like regular people because they are getting a check is insane.   The issues MUST be treat from the beginning.    Having them on programs that offer a limited amount of money, food stamps to insure they eat, and healthcare that will insure treatment for the root cause of their homelessness is what they need.
> 
> Your insistence that the healthcare industry will lower its rates, that homeless people can take advantage of direct deposits and save money, and that they will pay their bills in a timely fashion, is simple wrong.   Your plan is not about helping the homeless, but about you not wanting to admit being wrong.  On this you are absolutely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want the employee to get paid if he works and still get paid if he quits and no longer provides his labor to the employer.
> But the employer, who was willing to pay for the labor, gets nothing at all?    Meanwhile, his taxes go up to pay for the employee who quit?
> 
> No, that is not equality.   Equality requires that BOTH parties get something if either gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being frivolous, story teller.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.   Unemployment compensation has simple rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law to simplify even further, those simple rules.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you can't do a means test so you push for unemployment compensation to provide you money for luxuries.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they only have those issues because they don't have any money to afford help under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
Click to expand...

why work for "just a check"?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party, i am not talking about alleged, "right to work" States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   And if you voluntarily quit, there are consequences.  One of which is no money.   You don't get paid for "opting out of work".   You have no right to other people's money for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being frivolous, story teller.
> 
> employment is at the will of either party for unemployment compensation not just the employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.   Unemployment compensation has simple rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law to simplify even further, those simple rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you can't do a means test so you push for unemployment compensation to provide you money for luxuries.
Click to expand...

that is Your story, story teller.  

it is about equal protection of the law to help improve the efficiency of our economy.

once that is done, we can raise taxes by simply raising the unemployment wage rate.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.   They are almost always homeless because of those issues.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
Click to expand...


Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take story tellers seriously under Any form of Capitalism, when capital is involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
Click to expand...

one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.   But I have posted 2 links concerning homeless people.   You should have read them.
> 
> 
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
Click to expand...


Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.

The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> means nothing if they can't apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
Click to expand...

nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.   If they get money, food stamps, job training, healthcare, and subsidized housing, they will be better off than just getting a check.
> 
> 
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
Click to expand...


The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.

And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.

So you post is nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why work for "just a check"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
Click to expand...

you only have stories, story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for most people a check leads to a better life.   But the homeless have other problems.
> 
> 
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
Click to expand...


Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of those problems should not be a lack of capital under capitalism.  it is a requirement for free market participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
Click to expand...

you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.

why do you believe you are right?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> 
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
Click to expand...


Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
Click to expand...

you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.

i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital does not just materialize.   It is earned.
> 
> The idea that markets improve as capital is circulated is accurate.   But capital circulates even if left in the hands of those who earned it.   To help the homeless, I am all for giving them a limited amount of money.   But that is for needs, not luxuries.
> 
> You seem to be operating under the misconception that you are owed money just for being alive.    You are not.
> 
> 
> 
> nice story.  why do we have the cost our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror if what you say is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
Click to expand...


The definition of the logical fallacy Appeal to Ignorance is as follows:
"*Appeal to Ignorance*. This *fallacy* occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This *fallacy* wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim."


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that money circulates, even when left in the hands of those who earned it, is not changed by the cost of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty or terror.
> 
> And you are not owed money just for being alive, even though we have wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror.
> 
> So you post is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
Click to expand...


Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?

I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you only have stories, story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
Click to expand...

no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance. 

post a definition, so we can go over it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me exactly what part of the post you quoted was a story.
> 
> 
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
Click to expand...


A definition of what?    

I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have Only an appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> why do you believe you are right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
Click to expand...

only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that. 

you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you make an accusation that I am telling stories. I simply ask you to point out exactly what part of the post you quoted is a story.    Once again, you refuse to answer.    But you ask a question.    Do you expect an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   

Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?   

And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no understanding of a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> i would have looked up several dictionary and encyclopedic definition, to make sure i understand my argument and ensure those of the opposing view will lose theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
Click to expand...

your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?    And which one of those claimed that there is a threshold for the multiplier effect?
> 
> I am arguing that putting $100 will bring a larger multiplier effect than $75 will.     Are you saying that investing less brings the same multiplier effect?
> 
> 
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
Click to expand...


Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i am saying your economic rational is simply an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> post a definition, so we can go over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.

Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A definition of what?
> 
> I think there is no economic rational that will justify trying to take money that other people earned and spending it on luxuries.  The fact that there may be some economic good that comes from it does not justify the expectation that your luxuries be supported by other people's labors.
> 
> 
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
Click to expand...


Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only someone ignorant of the field of economics, claim that.
> 
> you need to argue a positive multiplier effect, not the ignorance of a story told by a story teller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
Click to expand...

lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Are you asking for a definition of positive multiplier effect?
> 
> And, as I asked earlier, are you claiming that putting $75 into a positive multiplier has the same or greater effect than putting $100 into the same system?
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
Click to expand...


It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.

And, as we have discussed numerous times, the money to the homeless MUST come with other assistance for their mental health and substance abuse issues.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your appeal to ignorance is irrelevant simply Because, positive multipliers don't work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
Click to expand...

explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.

"the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect. 

Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.

If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.

If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't work that way?    So you are saying that how much money is put into the positive multiplier doesn't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
Click to expand...


It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
Click to expand...

lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.

Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am saying you don't understand how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> Why do You believe there will be less money circulating with more people spending it, on an at-will basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
Click to expand...

why do you say that?  

Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
Click to expand...


Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, in order for the money to be redistributed it must be collected by the gov't, sorted by the gov't, and then sent out by the gov't.    Those things cost money.   The idea that the gov't takes $100 and then $100 ends up in the hands of the poor is not accurate at all.    If the gov't takes $100, then around $75 gets to the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
Click to expand...


I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
Click to expand...

Means testing is not efficient.  

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  you still appeal to ignorance of a positive multiplier effect with Persons simply circulating capital instead of being homeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
Click to expand...

That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.

And, we have fiat money not commodity money.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
Click to expand...


Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.

No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?

Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.

Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?

Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an appeal to ignorance to point out that money redistributed is reduced by the costs of redistribution.
> 
> 
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
Click to expand...


If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.

Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
Click to expand...

The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. 

There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> explain how that works with a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> "the Costs of redistribution of capital" is what Causes the multiplier effect.
> 
> Someone else gets paid as well, not just the unemployed receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
Click to expand...

lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.  

Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


There is no requirement for compensation either.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me, are you counting the money given to the person as benefits to be part of the multiplier effect?   If someone pays you to do something, that is part of the multiplier effect.    If money is take from someone and given to someone else, that is not a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
Click to expand...


So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, the amount of money available for a positive multiplier effect is lower, since there is a significant cost involved in redistributing the money.
> 
> If I make $100, I spend it and it is in turn respent several times, compounding the effect.
> 
> If the gov't takes $100, that money leaves the local economy.  At best, $75 returns to the local economy in the form of monetary benefits to the poor.   Yes, it will be spent and respent, but since there is less to begin with there is less for the positive multiplier effect to compound.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


Need?    I think you are confusing the word "want" with the word "need".     You may be unemployed, but you do not need compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
Click to expand...

lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you say that?
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about fake, right wing alleged morality, Only Capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
Click to expand...

No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good. 

Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  means testing is more expensive than unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.  solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment increases the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Socialism can correct for capitalism's natural rate inefficiency through the Individual Liberty of compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, _on an at-will basis_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need?    I think you are confusing the word "want" with the word "need".     You may be unemployed, but you do not need compensation.
Click to expand...

i believe in solving for actual economic phenomena rather than simply telling stories.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.

It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because every step in the process of the positive multiplier effect is an exchange.   People exchange goods and services for money.   Except the tax that provides you with money is not an exchange.   The money is taken, but nothing is given in return.   It is not multiplied because it was a negative effect and then a positive effect.    First someone had the money they earned taken away, then someone had money they did not earn given to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
Click to expand...


So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.

And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is simply an efficient way to prevent fraud.   In other words, the welfare system is expressly designed to help someone who needs the help.  If you don't need the help, you can't get it and should get it.   Fraud drains the resources that can be used to help the needy poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need?    I think you are confusing the word "want" with the word "need".     You may be unemployed, but you do not need compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe in solving for actual economic phenomena rather than simply telling stories.
Click to expand...


No.   You want money for your luxuries, and you defend it by claiming altruistic ideals.   But it is still wanting money for luxuries without being willing to work for it.

You want luxuries?   Get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
Click to expand...

those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how a positive multiplier effect works.
> 
> And, we have fiat money not commodity money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
Click to expand...

it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Means testing is not efficient.
> 
> Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need?    I think you are confusing the word "want" with the word "need".     You may be unemployed, but you do not need compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe in solving for actual economic phenomena rather than simply telling stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.   You want money for your luxuries, and you defend it by claiming altruistic ideals.   But it is still wanting money for luxuries without being willing to work for it.
> 
> You want luxuries?   Get a job.
Click to expand...

lol.  you need the moral high ground for that, story teller.  too bad we also have a First Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just mailing out checks if someone says they are unemployed?    Sure.   No chance of fraud in a system like that.
> 
> No requirement to show need?   No requirement to show they are not independently wealthy?
> 
> Just say you don't have a job and get paid for it?   Of course, some states don't pay much.  Florida's unemployment compensation maxes out at $275 a week.  But that is still $1191 a month.   For doing nothing.
> 
> Why do you think you are owed money for doing nothing?
> 
> Do you still have to report your search for work, with 4 verifiable sources each week?
> 
> 
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
Click to expand...


No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.

Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have $100 taken, and nothing given in return, and you get $100 and do nothing in return, that is NOT an example of the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Also, the multiplier effect works just as well without giving money away.  It circulates and multiplies just as well.    Handing money out to people who do not work for it is not a good economic policy.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.


----------



## bodecea

I would wager that many INCELs are unemployed...unemployable......and spend as much time excusing it, blaming it on women and life and so on and so forth.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.



This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.

It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.

And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The need is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> There is no work requirement in any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.


----------



## danielpalos

bodecea said:


> I would wager that many INCELs are unemployed...unemployable......and spend as much time excusing it, blaming it on women and life and so on and so forth.


you haven't won any arguments with me yet.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
Click to expand...

nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.
> 
> Compensating the unemployed with unemployment compensation is not simply giving someone money.
> 
> Those people who receive that compensation will spend it sooner rather than later.  Every time money circulates, someone is getting money and taxes are being paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
Click to expand...




> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for compensation either.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Click to expand...


You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.

It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
Click to expand...


Not according to the legal definitions of who is eligible for compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
Click to expand...


And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they are drawing unemployment, do they still have to report weekly with 4 verifiable sources that they applied for work?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  The legal concept of unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

only through unequal protection of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the legal definitions of who is eligible for compensation.
Click to expand...

The law is employment at the will of either party. 



> 2922  An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.



Equal protection of that law, is the goal.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
Click to expand...

in an at-will employment State?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Under Capitalism, we merely need follow the money trail if persons prefer to be Bad and not Good.
> 
> Why commit fraud if you can get paid to not work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.    But with limitations.   Just because the legal concept exists does not mean it can be demanded by every person.
> 
> It is offered as assistance for those who lost their job through no fault of their own.    Just like lawsuit awards are for those who suffered because of the negligence of others.
> 
> 
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in an at-will employment State?
Click to expand...


Yes.    Just like the employer is supposed to replace the employee who quit, you are supposed to replace your income on your own.    No one owes you a living, especially not for luxuries.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want unemployment compensation without seeking unemployment?    lol      Sorry, that's not how it works.
> 
> And you do not get paid not to work.   You get paid to actively seek work.
> 
> 
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
Click to expand...


And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> those, limitations, are unequal protection of the law for the Poor and unjust when the Richest are too rich to fail in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party not just the employer for full benefits from unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.    Just like the employer is supposed to replace the employee who quit, you are supposed to replace your income on your own.    No one owes you a living, especially not for luxuries.
Click to expand...

just another story?  Equal protection of the law, does that. 

And, your stories and overly dramatic.  Who is going to buy luxuries instead of necessities on unemployment compensation?  Your self serving stories give you away.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
Click to expand...

you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those limitation define the compensation to be used to help those in need.
> 
> Disability is a legal concept too.    Should we make it available to everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.

In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same nonsense you have been posting for weeks.
> 
> It is at the will of either party, true.   Either can end it at any time.   But the employee getting paid for not providing labor while the employer does without labor is not equal protect of the law.
> 
> And the employer does not benefit from unemployment compensation.   He has to work for his compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.    Just like the employer is supposed to replace the employee who quit, you are supposed to replace your income on your own.    No one owes you a living, especially not for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story?  Equal protection of the law, does that.
> 
> And, your stories and overly dramatic.  Who is going to buy luxuries instead of necessities on unemployment compensation?  Your self serving stories give you away.
Click to expand...


Who?  You are!   You only want a job so you can take women out to dinner.   YOu quit your last job a few years ago and have been content to live off your Mom while whining about there being no "nice girls" who will fuck an unemployed guy with no prospects for the future.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.    Of course, many victims of the natural rate of unemployment can draw compensation.    They lost their job through no fault of their own and are actively seeking work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.
Click to expand...


I have posted accurate information.   You simply refuse to accept it.  But rather than present counterpoints to my arguments, you laughing claim I am telling stories and lie about my using fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It is Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; it is.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice irrelevant story.  the employer is supposed to hire someone and have them ready to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.    Just like the employer is supposed to replace the employee who quit, you are supposed to replace your income on your own.    No one owes you a living, especially not for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story?  Equal protection of the law, does that.
> 
> And, your stories and overly dramatic.  Who is going to buy luxuries instead of necessities on unemployment compensation?  Your self serving stories give you away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  You are!   You only want a job so you can take women out to dinner.   YOu quit your last job a few years ago and have been content to live off your Mom while whining about there being no "nice girls" who will fuck an unemployed guy with no prospects for the future.
Click to expand...

you need arguments not fallacious stories.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted accurate information.   You simply refuse to accept it.  But rather than present counterpoints to my arguments, you laughing claim I am telling stories and lie about my using fallacies.
Click to expand...

dear, you are clueless and Causeless.  i simply like to practice, just for fun.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot redefine unemployment compensation to suit your needs.
> 
> It is temporary compensation for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
Click to expand...


No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the person who quit their job is supposed to find another job.
> 
> 
> 
> in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.    Just like the employer is supposed to replace the employee who quit, you are supposed to replace your income on your own.    No one owes you a living, especially not for luxuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just another story?  Equal protection of the law, does that.
> 
> And, your stories and overly dramatic.  Who is going to buy luxuries instead of necessities on unemployment compensation?  Your self serving stories give you away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  You are!   You only want a job so you can take women out to dinner.   YOu quit your last job a few years ago and have been content to live off your Mom while whining about there being no "nice girls" who will fuck an unemployed guy with no prospects for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need arguments not fallacious stories.
Click to expand...


The post you quoted is, by your own words, absolutely accurate.   If it is a "fallacious story" you were the one telling it.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those who voluntarily quit their job have not been denied life, liberty, or property without due process.  And they have not been denied equal protection under the law.  The law does not protect your paycheck when you voluntarily quit your job.   And the employer does not gain anything from the law either.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted accurate information.   You simply refuse to accept it.  But rather than present counterpoints to my arguments, you laughing claim I am telling stories and lie about my using fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are clueless and Causeless.  i simply like to practice, just for fun.
Click to expand...


Practice?    Why not practice getting a to support yourself like an actual adult?    Why not practice being responsible for your own life and your own actions?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only through unequal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

dear, this is the issue:



> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.



That is the law we need equal protection of.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the story telling right wing, seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted accurate information.   You simply refuse to accept it.  But rather than present counterpoints to my arguments, you laughing claim I am telling stories and lie about my using fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are clueless and Causeless.  i simply like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Practice?    Why not practice getting a to support yourself like an actual adult?    Why not practice being responsible for your own life and your own actions?
Click to expand...

my mom is nearly eighty.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal protection under the law is already there.     When you voluntarily quit your job you lose your paycheck.  Your employer loses trained labor.    Neither of you gets any compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you refuse to accept the facts.    That is your delusion, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> you have no arguments, dear.  only fallacious stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted accurate information.   You simply refuse to accept it.  But rather than present counterpoints to my arguments, you laughing claim I am telling stories and lie about my using fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you are clueless and Causeless.  i simply like to practice, just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Practice?    Why not practice getting a to support yourself like an actual adult?    Why not practice being responsible for your own life and your own actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my mom is nearly eighty.
Click to expand...


And I am sure she would love to see you get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  Equal protection is, if you can quit you can collect unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
Click to expand...

don't really care about the law, right winger?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  YOu can stomp your feet and cry about this until you are blue in the face, but until you can explain how the employer benefits and the employee is punished, your claim of unequal protection is just a lie.
> 
> In our society, an adult who is capable, is expected to take care of themselves.   That is not an unreasonable expectation.   Expecting others to take care of your needs AND your luxuries just because you don't WANT to work is completely unreasonable.   No amount of whining about unequal protection uner the law or the natural rate of unemployment changes that.    The natural rate of unemployment *ONLY* considers those seeking a job.   You are not seeking a job.   You are spending your efforts on figuring out ways NOT to work and still get money for luxuries.    YOu should be ashamed, but you apparently have no shame.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
Click to expand...


I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, dear; it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.
Click to expand...

the law is more important, right wingers.   enforce the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  And I am tired of responding to the same tired lie.    Unless you can explain how the employer benefits or gets something, and the employee does not, I will simply respond with "Blah blah blah" to future claims of unequal protection under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is more important, right wingers.   enforce the law.
Click to expand...


I can't see that the law is not being enforced where unemployment is concerned.    YOu can quit, they can fire you, neither gets anything beyond that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, this is the issue:
> 
> That is the law we need equal protection of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is more important, right wingers.   enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see that the law is not being enforced where unemployment is concerned.    YOu can quit, they can fire you, neither gets anything beyond that.
Click to expand...

dear; it is about solving simple poverty to promote the general welfare on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is more important, right wingers.   enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see that the law is not being enforced where unemployment is concerned.    YOu can quit, they can fire you, neither gets anything beyond that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about solving simple poverty to promote the general welfare on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


There are more efficient means of solving poverty that do not require revamping the entire system.


----------



## WinterBorn

Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't really care about the law, right winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I care very much about the law.   And I also care about my tax dollars being wasted to support someone who is capable of supporting themselves.   And btw, few women are interested in a middle aged man making less than minimum wage, with no ambition to improve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the law is more important, right wingers.   enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see that the law is not being enforced where unemployment is concerned.    YOu can quit, they can fire you, neither gets anything beyond that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear; it is about solving simple poverty to promote the general welfare on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more efficient means of solving poverty that do not require revamping the entire system.
Click to expand...

No, there are not.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?


Employment is at the will of either party. 

And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
Click to expand...


So do I.   But I still have a full time job.

I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
Click to expand...

i have a lot of domestic chores.  

and, i am looking for remote work.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
Click to expand...


I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.   

Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
Click to expand...

John Henry worked hardest of all.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, let me ask you, what reason do you have for not working?   I'm not talking about everyone else, just you.    You seem reasonably intelligent and have mentioned no physical handicap.   Why do you refuse to work?
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
Click to expand...


Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment is at the will of either party.
> 
> And, I don't refuse to work.  I have plenty of domestic chores that need to be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.
Click to expand...

it could; but i usually work on my own, at home.  it is like my chores.  i am in the process of learning html and css.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.   But I still have a full time job.
> 
> I am asking why you prefer not having spending money to going out to a job?
> 
> 
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it could; but i usually work on my own, at home.  it is like my chores.  i am in the process of learning html and css.
Click to expand...


Good luck.  You'll need to be more than a novice to get work.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have a lot of domestic chores.
> 
> and, i am looking for remote work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it could; but i usually work on my own, at home.  it is like my chores.  i am in the process of learning html and css.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  You'll need to be more than a novice to get work.
Click to expand...

it will probably be easier once i get into javascript.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a sick wife, 3 kids and a full-time job.
> 
> Yeah, I remember you talking about that 3 or 4 weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it could; but i usually work on my own, at home.  it is like my chores.  i am in the process of learning html and css.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  You'll need to be more than a novice to get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it will probably be easier once i get into javascript.
Click to expand...


Ballpark idea of how many hours a day do you devote to studying?


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Henry worked hardest of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think remote work won't take as much time as a regular job?   I mean, other than the drive to and from, it will require you to be working for 8 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it could; but i usually work on my own, at home.  it is like my chores.  i am in the process of learning html and css.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  You'll need to be more than a novice to get work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it will probably be easier once i get into javascript.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ballpark idea of how many hours a day do you devote to studying?
Click to expand...

it depends.  today i hardly did anything.  but usually i put in a hour or so.  they have pretty good tutorials on YouTube.


----------



## danielpalos

The point about unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is that markets can continue to function normally.


----------

