Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[danielpalos]

No, actually once again...you've posted quotes from the Constitution, and a general discription of "at-will" employment...heck at one point you didnt even realize the issue you have is with UE Insurance laws, not at-will employment...

then you went on to claim people should be able to get insurance payments...even if it's their fault...basically highlighting you have no clue what insurance is.

People that lose their job because of their own fault, can still get benefits, SNAP, medicaid, WIC, etc, but they can't get insurance...and shouldn't...for the same reason my insurance company shouldn't pay me to fix my window, that i purposely threw a rock through.

That is why nobody should take right-wingers seriously about anything serious. There is no appeal to the law.

 

[struth]

That is why nobody should take right-wingers seriously about anything serious. There is no appeal to the law.

I don't think it's a right v left thing....I don't know any leftwinger outside of you, that has this belief about UE insurance laws, and the US Constitution.

You are very unique in your flawed logic.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't think it's a right v left thing....I don't know any leftwinger outside of you, that has this belief about UE insurance laws, and the US Constitution.

You are very unique in your flawed logic.

Thanks. Unfortunately, Every right-winger shares your ignorance of the law and have no problem appealing to ignorance of the law while alleging they are against "illegals" in border threads.

I don't need to care what right-wingers believe. I only need to resort to the fewest fallacies before a judge.

Y'all have no standing in any Court.

 

[hadit]

Do they have a right to a job in a Right to Work State?

No, they do not. The term, "right to work" means that a union can't force them to go out on strike, and they don't have to belong to a union to work.

 

[struth]

Thanks. Unfortunately, Every right-winger shares your ignorance of the law and have no problem appealing to ignorance of the law while alleging they are against "illegals" in border threads.

I don't need to care what right-wingers believe. I only need to resort to the fewest fallacies before a judge.

Y'all have no standing in any Court.

Maybe you didn't read my post...it's not a left v right thing...I don't know of any left wingers that share your views about the unConstitutional aspects of UE insurance.

I wasn't taking anything to Court...so you are right...I have no standing.

Have you brought your suit? How's it playing out in Court?

 

[hadit]

No false-witness-bearing right-wing hypocrites believe me. There, I fixed it for you.

Then tell us who agrees with you. Show us the lawyers and legal scholars who agree with you. Show us the court cases that were decided that agree with you.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they do not. The term, "right to work" means that a union can't force them to go out on strike, and they don't have to belong to a union to work.

Thanks. Just right-wingers "playing fast and loose" with actual terms?

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe you didn't read my post...it's not a left v right thing...I don't know of any left wingers that share your views about the unConstitutional aspects of UE insurance.

I wasn't taking anything to Court...so you are right...I have no standing.

Have you brought your suit? How's it playing out in Court?

I thought you said it was not a left or right thing? Leftwingers are not the ones trying to deny or disparage my arguments with nothing but hypocrisy and lies.

 

[hadit]

Not at all. A solution to natural unemployment and the poverty inducing effects is a solution to simple poverty and produces a multiplier of 2.

We still need means tested welfare for those for whom solving for simple poverty may not be enough.

And, the comparison is that means tested welfare only produces a multiplier of 0.8.

And you would have to so fundamentally change UC to accomplish what you want that your magic multiplier would disappear and you would have just another giant welfare program.

 

[danielpalos]

Then tell us who agrees with you. Show us the lawyers and legal scholars who agree with you. Show us the court cases that were decided that agree with you.

No legal scholars disagree with me.

 

[hadit]

Thanks. Just right-wingers "playing fast and loose" with actual terms?

Nope, you're using terms you don't understand.

 

[hadit]

No legal scholars disagree with me.

Name some who do and quote them. Link to your source.

 

[danielpalos]

And you would have to so fundamentally change UC to accomplish what you want that your magic multiplier would disappear and you would have just another giant welfare program.

A simplification without so much expensive "regulations". Only the right-wing is that ignorant while denouncing, Big Government.

 

[struth]

I thought you said it was not a left or right thing? Leftwingers are not the ones trying to deny or disparage my arguments with nothing but hypocrisy and lies.

It's not...I don't know of any left winger that supports your logic.

Maybe you can provide some....does even Bernie Sanders share this?

Are there any leftwing posters on this thread supporting your "arguments?"

 

[danielpalos]

Nope, you're using terms you don't understand.

I understand what a Right to Work means. Why don't right-wingers? CRT?

 

[danielpalos]

Name some who do and quote them. Link to your source.

You get them to come here and claim I am wrong.

 

[hadit]

We have to upgrade the way that system is funded. All participants get to participate in the funding, included those receiving unemployment compensation. Remember, general taxation is always to be preferred to direct taxation.

IOW, you would have to raise taxes to fund your giant new welfare program. What other programs are you going to cut to get this funding without further bankrupting the nation?

 

[danielpalos]

It's not...I don't know of any left winger that supports your logic.

Maybe you can provide some....does even Bernie Sanders share this?

Are there any leftwing posters on this thread supporting your "arguments?"

Nobody but the right-wing appeals to ignorance of the law of my logic.

 

[hadit]

I understand what a Right to Work means. Why don't right-wingers? CRT?

And it literally doesn't mean you have a right to a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

You seem to have a false understanding of the concept and the law. The law is employment at the will of either party; even for any benefits administered by the State.

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.

You keep claiming that, without any evidence at all. Being employed in a union job does not violate the at-will employment law, despite the fact that employers cannot fired or terminate someone for no reason. Working under a contract does not violate the at-will employment law, despite the fact the employee cannot quit for no reason without being penalized.

Your supposition is simply bogus.