Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party.

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

 

[Papageorgio]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

It still tickles me to the bone that these message board wags wailed and whined endlessly about "drain the swamp" and "upset the establishment". Soon as this young lady, a real person not a well-connected attorney type, ousted an entrenched establishment type and thereby did just that, they spun a 180 on "drain the swamp" so fast it made everybody's head spin. Suddenly they were all up in here defending the entrenched Democrat, the old guy.

Having it both ways is Priceless, but doing it that fast takes a real power of self-delusion.

And needles to say, zero of these armchair critics are actually within her district anyway.

She is great, she will give the establishment Democrats a run for their money.

 

[Papageorgio]

Terminating employment is at the will of either party, that's it. They can't be forced to hire you and you can't be forced to work, but the taxpayers can't be forced to pay you as if you are working.

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

 

[danielpalos]

that is why, it is compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. it is public policy. an public policy is an public use.

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

 

[Papageorgio]

You haven't proved the natural rate of unemployment, all you have provided is your opinion. Lay out facts to persuade, give opinion if you are not sure.

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

 

[danielpalos]

it is an economic term. why are you arguing economics if you don't know the terms?

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

 

[Papageorgio]

So far my argument is superior and is the law. Let me know when you have a new argument.

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

 

[hadit]

employment is at the will of either party. there is no valid reason for any public policy exception in modern economic times.

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

He thinks it's not equal that he can't get unemployment compensation just because he didn't hold a job first.

 

[danielpalos]

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

He thinks it's not equal that he can't get unemployment compensation just because he didn't hold a job first.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[Papageorgio]

Definite opinion however weak argument when the current unemployment policy works so well.

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

 

[danielpalos]

only if you know nothing about economics and a positive multiplier effect.

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

 

[Papageorgio]

I know about the multiplier and unemployment checks work until one gets a job. You ought to try working someday.

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

 

[danielpalos]

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

thanks. EDD should be required to Prove for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

 

[DandyDonovan]

so is AOCphobist anything like Islamaphobist where you just throw the word out there against anyone who has a bad word to say about the person as if that is supposed to mean anything?

No one is scared of AOC, she is just dumb and makes an easy target.

 

[hadit]

how about the "equal protection of the law, angle"?

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

He's trying to make the case that he should get "unemployment compensation" even if he never held a job and never intends to. Claims it's equal protection under the law. It's a classic Daniel word redefinition exercise.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

Actually having a dependency on government to be your provider to supply all your needs is socialism. As well there is nothing in the Constitution that supports this, as you have not shown where this is written. Once again Daniel is proven to have fallen short on his knowledge of the subject.

the right wing is good on projection, not facts.

SOCIALISM

the means of which the (1) production, (2) distribution, and (3) exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


Socialism is not individual ownership and ability to achieve by one’s own efforts, that is more closely aligned with capitalism. Rather Socialism is based on the belief of a third party that owns or regulates for the benefit of the overall community MORE than the rights of the individual. That third party or regulation comes through the government, which controls the distribution of one group’s efforts in exchange for the benefit of the “community” as a whole. Socialism is contrary to the Founders established view through the Constitution, who’s belief’s is placed in the greater emphasis towards an INDIVIDUAL’s rights and liberty above all.

I seriously doubt you will be capable of providing me with a definition description regarding socialism, that’s contrary with those established parameters shown above. Go ahead... just try and prove me wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

He's trying to make the case that he should get "unemployment compensation" even if he never held a job and never intends to. Claims it's equal protection under the law. It's a classic Daniel word redefinition exercise.

I agree and he is so vague, unless he can communicate better his idea is DOA. If it ever did come about, my wife and I would retire, collect our pensions, unemployment and SSI, then wait until we get to the age where I could pull my 401K's and IRA's out without being taxed and travel with my wife in a motorhome.

I wonder how many people would just up and quit their jobs?

 

[hadit]

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

He's trying to make the case that he should get "unemployment compensation" even if he never held a job and never intends to. Claims it's equal protection under the law. It's a classic Daniel word redefinition exercise.

I agree and he is so vague, unless he can communicate better his idea is DOA. If it ever did come about, my wife and I would retire, collect our pensions, unemployment and SSI, then wait until we get to the age where I could pull my 401K's and IRA's out without being taxed and travel with my wife in a motorhome.

I wonder how many people would just up and quit their jobs?

A lot. It's inevitable.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you think there is no equal protection?

At-will employment - Wikipedia

Still not seeing why you feel there is no equal protection.

it requires reading comprehension not just talking comprehension.

"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."

Sounds fair to me.

He's trying to make the case that he should get "unemployment compensation" even if he never held a job and never intends to. Claims it's equal protection under the law. It's a classic Daniel word redefinition exercise.

only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism.