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

[hadit]

Dear right-wingers,

Solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States does not require Rocket Science.

And, we have already been to the Moon and back.

And none of the solutions you've proposed will do anything to solve poverty, simple or complex. All you've proposed simply equates to paying people not to work, and we have seen how that ends, every time.

 

[hadit]

Why does it matter? I already know I resort to the fewest fallacies.

And the dance moves continue. You're desperately trying to get away from the central fact that you have nothing left to argue and don't want to admit you've been shown multiple times to just plain be wrong.

Here's an easy prediction. You will lose your court case, it will be tossed out, but you will not learn anything from it. In fact, you will come on here and insist that you know the law better than the judge and all the lawyers in that court do and that you're still right and that means testing for UC is unequal protection under the law. Like I said, an easy prediction, because this is your one and only core economic belief and you would no sooner back away from it than to admit the reason you can't get laid is you turn off all the women you come in contact with by telling them they owe you sex.

 

[hadit]

I absolutely believe that, due to human nature, there would be a significant number of people who would refuse to take any job if they could get enough free money to live on.

Daniel, you didn't like this post. Why is that? Why do you think most people would take a job when they can get enough to live on for free?

 

[danielpalos]

Poor people are in poverty.

Not true. We must distinguish between Poor and poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Another dance move from Daniel.

Is it any wonder I am attracted to women shuffle dancing?

 

[struth]

Thanks. I wrote to the Court about the issues involved and how I may need recourse to our Tenth Amendment to ensure we can get a comprehensive solution from the general Government of the Union.

oh i’m sure that will go far

 

[danielpalos]

I am not nearly as funny as your posts about unemployment compensation.

Is that why I am attracted to comediennes?

 

[hadit]

Not true. We must distinguish between Poor and poverty.

So go ahead, make the distinction, then explain why it's relevant to the discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, you didn't like this post. Why is that? Why do you think most people would take a job when they can get enough to live on for free?

You are simply wrong. Anyone will learn capital concepts automatically merely by using capital.

 

[danielpalos]

oh i’m sure that will go far

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

 

[danielpalos]

So go ahead, make the distinction, then explain why it's relevant to the discussion.

To better understand the economic issues.

 

[struth]

There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

i don’t disagree…what about the state court in which you are in?

 

[danielpalos]

i don’t disagree…what about the state court in which you are in?

I am waiting for a response from the Court.

 

[danielpalos]

i don’t disagree…what about the state court in which you are in?

The Court is welcome to decline competence without prejudice due to sovereignty issues in order to move this case to a federal venue for more comprehensive, top-down resolution.

 

[hadit]

You are simply wrong. Anyone will learn capital concepts automatically merely by using capital.

Human nature has been well documented for a very long time, and we have seen many, many instances where socialism flat out fails because it ends up paying people to not work, so they don't. You have nothing beyond your own wish that says they will work. Heck, we even have YOU stating that no one should work, that only capital needs to move around and you mock the work ethic. Yet here you are, contradicting yourself yet again. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

 

[hadit]

To better understand the economic issues.

You didn't make the distinction. You just said there is one, so what is the distinction?

 

[danielpalos]

Human nature has been well documented for a very long time, and we have seen many, many instances where socialism flat out fails because it ends up paying people to not work, so they don't. You have nothing beyond your own wish that says they will work. Heck, we even have YOU stating that no one should work, that only capital needs to move around and you mock the work ethic. Yet here you are, contradicting yourself yet again. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

Therein lies your misunderstanding. It is Why we are solving for a simple poverty of Capital under our form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

You didn't make the distinction. You just said there is one, so what is the distinction?

You don't have to be in poverty to be Poor.

 

[hadit]

Therein lies your misunderstanding. It is Why we are solving for a simple poverty of Capital under our form of Capitalism.

IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[hadit]

You don't have to be in poverty to be Poor.

You're still not making any distinction.