Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

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.

Government is social-ism.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

no need for "make work" jobs, in that case.

 

[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.

only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism.

Doesn't matter. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else just because you want to cloak your true goals and make them sound more appealing.

 

[hadit]

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.

no need for "make work" jobs, in that case.

Until you run out of other peoples' money, and you will. Every time.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Doesn't matter. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else just because you want to cloak your true goals and make them sound more appealing.

employment is at the will of either party. why does the right wing prefer to use Capitalism to Punish the Poor?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

no need for "make work" jobs, in that case.

Until you run out of other peoples' money, and you will. Every time.

an already proven positive multiplier effect along with automatic stabilization of our economy.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Okay, now that is one of the silliest things I have seen you post. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

I think you are a bot, you post mindless, pointless posts. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

I think you are a bot, you post mindless, pointless posts. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

you need valid arguments to play; you need superior arguments to win.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

I think you are a bot, you post mindless, pointless posts. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

you need valid arguments to play; you need superior arguments to win.

Already did and already won. Thank you though.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

I think you are a bot, you post mindless, pointless posts. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

you need valid arguments to play; you need superior arguments to win.

Already did and already won. Thank you though.

only in right wing fantasy. you need real arguments, not just gossip.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Good point. A strong economy needs a balance between investment capital (business) and working capital. (consumers i.e the working class) Money in the hands of the working class is what makes investments profitable. A good flow of money between business and workers makes a strong economy. If that money collects in one place, (usually at the top) it pinches off the velocity of money and the economy falters.

 

[hadit]

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.

Doesn't matter. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else just because you want to cloak your true goals and make them sound more appealing.

employment is at the will of either party. why does the right wing prefer to use Capitalism to Punish the Poor?

They don't. And you still don't get to redefine words.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Good point. A strong economy needs a balance between investment capital (business) and working capital. (consumers i.e the working class) Money in the hands of the working class is what makes investments profitable. A good flow of money between business and workers makes a strong economy. If that money collects in one place, (usually at the top) it pinches off the velocity of money and the economy falters.

the right wing doesn't believe, liquidity matters.

Henry Ford, knew better.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Doesn't matter. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else just because you want to cloak your true goals and make them sound more appealing.

employment is at the will of either party. why does the right wing prefer to use Capitalism to Punish the Poor?

They don't. And you still don't get to redefine words.

why the work ethic to punish instead of simply capital to encourage?

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

how many lousy employees don't need to waste corporate space? if you are actually motivated; you should be able to do as well as you want.

I think you are a bot, you post mindless, pointless posts. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

you need valid arguments to play; you need superior arguments to win.

Already did and already won. Thank you though.

only in right wing fantasy. you need real arguments, not just gossip.

Then you need to quit gossiping and come up with valid arguments because so far you are coming up with a lot of nothing, just tired old unproven propaganda.

 

[hadit]

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.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Good point. A strong economy needs a balance between investment capital (business) and working capital. (consumers i.e the working class) Money in the hands of the working class is what makes investments profitable. A good flow of money between business and workers makes a strong economy. If that money collects in one place, (usually at the top) it pinches off the velocity of money and the economy falters.

the right wing doesn't believe, liquidity matters.

Henry Ford, knew better.

Henry Ford was in a unique position, and I've schooled you on this before. Don't even try.

 

[hadit]

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.

Doesn't matter. You don't get to redefine words to mean something else just because you want to cloak your true goals and make them sound more appealing.

employment is at the will of either party. why does the right wing prefer to use Capitalism to Punish the Poor?

They don't. And you still don't get to redefine words.

why the work ethic to punish instead of simply capital to encourage?

Capital requires work or it won't be produced. It's not punishment to require an able bodied person with available work to provide something of value in return for money that was forcibly taken from someone else. Earning something is better for the psych than simply having it given.