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

[WinterBorn]

If only women believed more in equality. Woe is we, we are the victims.

You are certainly not a victim. Women believe in equality. They just do not believe they have to get naked and succumb to your fantasies in order to prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is what he pointed out as a contradiction:
"First you say, "The judge tossed out right-wing lawsuits sooner than mine." Now you say, "Right-winders don't care enough about the Poor to bring those suits".".

Now either a judge tossed out right-wing lawsuits or Right-wingers don't care enough about the Poor to bring those suits. Pick one.

It could be both since they are two different types of suits.

 

[danielpalos]

You are certainly not a victim. Women believe in equality. They just do not believe they have to get naked and succumb to your fantasies in order to prove it.

Women are welcome to get naked and ask if they can try to addict me to their crack, just for fun.

 

[WinterBorn]

Women are welcome to get naked and ask if they can try to addict me to their crack, just for fun.

I am sure they are. But they are certainly not obligated. It is up to you to convince them.

 

[danielpalos]

I am sure they are. But they are certainly not obligated. It is up to you to convince them.

If only, women believed more in equality for the sake of morals and doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. Woe is we, we are the victims.

 

[WinterBorn]

If only, women believed more in equality for the sake of morals and doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. Woe is we, we are the victims.

You are not the victim. They would be if they succumbed to your fantasy. Why have sex with a less experienced man, who hasn't had but a few lovers, when they can have a man who knows what he is doing. Plus, another man can at least buy them a coffee when they meet.

 

[danielpalos]

You are not the victim. They would be if they succumbed to your fantasy. Why have sex with a less experienced man, who hasn't had but a few lovers, when they can have a man who knows what he is doing. Plus, another man can at least buy them a coffee when they meet.

Woe is me; I need affirmative action.

 

[WinterBorn]

Woe is me; I need affirmative action.

You need to be affirmative and do something.

 

[danielpalos]

Does anyone really believe anyone would be worse off with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation?

Can the right-wing explain how the homeless as class or women as a class would be worse off?

How would our economy be worse off with greater efficiency of automatic stabilization?

 

[WinterBorn]

Does anyone really believe anyone would be worse off with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation?

Can the right-wing explain how the homeless as class or women as a class would be worse off?

How would our economy be worse off with greater efficiency of automatic stabilization?

Would the people who see their taxes go up and their net pay go down be better off?

Would the people who bust their ass to get somewhere in life be better off seeing their hard earned money be handed to people who do nothing?

There is already equal protection of the law. The at-will employment law is completely unaffected by unemployment compensation. And the fact that unemployment compensation is only available to those who lost their job through no fault of their own is not unconstitutional.

There are already welfare programs in place to help those in genuine need.

 

[danielpalos]

Would the people who see their taxes go up and their net pay go down be better off?

Why do you believe that would be the case?

Besides, that happened under your guy even without the Poor having recourse to our own Laws for Legal purposes. Thanks for re-affirming the fact that right-wingers don't really care about the Laws or the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Would the people who bust their ass to get somewhere in life be better off seeing their hard earned money be handed to people who do nothing?

Why do you assume that? Even right-wingers understand they don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

Is being a hypocrite part of the right-wing "work ethos"?

 

[danielpalos]

There is already equal protection of the law. The at-will employment law is completely unaffected by unemployment compensation. And the fact that unemployment compensation is only available to those who lost their job through no fault of their own is not unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, it is flawed and does not solve simple poverty and why the need for upgrading that "soft infrastructure".

 

[danielpalos]

There are already welfare programs in place to help those in genuine need.

Equal protection of the laws is a legal requirement under our Constitutional form of Government.

And, means tested welfare is for a different purpose. It is not meant to solve simple poverty in our at-will employment States. Our alleged and generational, War on Poverty is proof.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you believe that would be the case?

Besides, that happened under your guy even without the Poor having recourse to our own Laws for Legal purposes. Thanks for re-affirming the fact that right-wingers don't really care about the Laws or the Poor.

Your fantasy unemployment compensation would cost the US tax payers more than $2.5 billion dollars. Do you think that would happen without an increase in taxes?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do you assume that? Even right-wingers understand they don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

Is being a hypocrite part of the right-wing "work ethos"?

This is pure ignorance. The overwhelming majority will have to work to fund your debacle of a programs. No, people are not required to work, as individuals. But people who want a decent life work to make that for themselves.

 

[danielpalos]

Your fantasy unemployment compensation would cost the US tax payers more than $2.5 billion dollars. Do you think that would happen without an increase in taxes?

Are you really implying, for the whole and entire right-wing, that being Legal to the Law means nothing if it will raise your taxes?

Proof, right-wingers are just plain hypocrites and "hate on the Poor" as only false Christians can?

 

[danielpalos]

This is pure ignorance. The overwhelming majority will have to work to fund your debacle of a programs. No, people are not required to work, as individuals. But people who want a decent life work to make that for themselves.

Employment is at-will, and higher paid labor pay more taxes and create more in demand. Why not raise the minimum wage so the Poor can also pay more in taxes?

 

[WinterBorn]

Are you really implying, for the whole and entire right-wing, that being Legal to the Law means nothing if it will raise your taxes?

Proof, right-wingers are just plain hypocrites and "hate on the Poor" as only false Christians can?

First of all, you have not even come close to proving UC is illegal or unconstitutional.

Second of all, my comments was in reply to your post saying "Does anyone really believe anyone would be worse off with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation?". And so, yes many people would be worse off because their net income dropped.

 

[WinterBorn]

Employment is at-will, and higher paid labor pay more taxes and create more in demand. Why not raise the minimum wage so the Poor can also pay more in taxes?

Once again you post something that has nothing to do with the comment you quoted.