So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

that is Your story. i do more around the house than you do.

Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.

I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.

lol. i can claim the same thing, hypocrite. only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible. you have no idea how much i do either. you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.

The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life. It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

 

[danielpalos]

How is that equal protection of the law? Employers can simply fire someone and not wait for them to quit.

Yes they can. But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment. Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.

Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right. There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.

There is no "right" to unemployment compensation. You don't have a right to other people's money.

And each state has its own separate unemployment system. So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify. Someone who quits their job does not qualify.

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since you have no idea how much I do around the house, your claim is simply bullshit.

I guess you think, since you do household chores, you don't need any ambition to move up, a job to pay your way, or any sense of independence.

lol. i can claim the same thing, hypocrite. only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible. you have no idea how much i do either. you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.

The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life. It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes they can. But unless they fire them for cause, the employee can draw unemployment. Oh, and employees can quit anytime they want, whether it puts the employer in a bind or not.

Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right. There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.

There is no "right" to unemployment compensation. You don't have a right to other people's money.

And each state has its own separate unemployment system. So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify. Someone who quits their job does not qualify.

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i can claim the same thing, hypocrite. only i don't engage in hypocrisy whenever possible. you have no idea how much i do either. you just make it up just like any story teller telling stories.

The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life. It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Collecting unemployment compensation is part of that right. There is no State authority that can lawfully deny or disparage that right.

There is no "right" to unemployment compensation. You don't have a right to other people's money.

And each state has its own separate unemployment system. So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify. Someone who quits their job does not qualify.

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

The point is, you want to blame others for your lack of a sex life. It is either lousy female intuition, girls too far away, a lack of money ect ect ect.

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

You do? Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no "right" to unemployment compensation. You don't have a right to other people's money.

And each state has its own separate unemployment system. So obviously they can lawfully deny the benefits to those who do not qualify. Someone who quits their job does not qualify.

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

a lack of Things, not "true love for free".

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

You do? Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.

I understand the law better than that. you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

And if no one falls in love with you, you will blame a lack of lucre or blame the women for playing games.

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

You do? Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.

I understand the law better than that. you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.

Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.

The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place. They do not rely on seeking employment ect. That is what you want.

But you are, in fact, employed. You claim you do housework and household chores. For that you are paid room & board.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no right or requirement to work in an at-will employment State. We rely on capitalism to help market participants decide, not the subjective value of morals.

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

...that is You, story teller.

I may consider that there is no "true love for free under Capitalism" and move forward from there.

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

You do? Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.

I understand the law better than that. you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.

Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.

The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place. They do not rely on seeking employment ect. That is what you want.

But you are, in fact, employed. You claim you do housework and household chores. For that you are paid room & board.

That is the political portion of it that needs to be dumped, (junk bonds not junk laws!), in favor of equal protection of the law for Labor as the least wealthy in our political-economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, there is no requirement to work. None at all.

If you don't work there is no requirement to pay you either. If you don't need money, you are free to not work. But to insist on a paycheck, and not be willing to work is simply nonsense.

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are welcome to consider whatever you like. It is not based in reality. In reality an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

i understand economic reality, unlike the right wing.

You do? Then you should understand that unemployment compensation is for workers who lost their job through no fault of their own. Welfare is for people who do not work and do not seek a job.

I understand the law better than that. you claim a political policy not an economic policy that actually promotes the general welfare.

Unemployment compensation is a very specific program with very specific rules and limitations.

The general welfare is provided for by the various welfare systems in place. They do not rely on seeking employment ect. That is what you want.

But you are, in fact, employed. You claim you do housework and household chores. For that you are paid room & board.

That is the political portion of it that needs to be dumped, (junk bonds not junk laws!), in favor of equal protection of the law for Labor as the least wealthy in our political-economy.

There is nothing political about having to separate systems. One for unemployment compensation and one for welfare for those who quit a job and are not looking for another one.

 

[danielpalos]

To insist on compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment makes perfect sense. Why do you believe it doesn't, story teller?

come on, make up some stories for me to practice on.

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Unless you are seeking work and/or working, you have no right to compensation. You can insist all you want. But the fact that someone else works does not give you a right to their money.

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

 

[danielpalos]

How does that work with equal protection of the law? Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation.

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. See? You just lost another one.

lol. i gainsay your contention.

The problem is, you refuse to actually debate. You ask questions, that are answered. Then refuse to answer any questions. The arguments you make are mostly nonsense. An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.

lol. all you have is stories and fallacies. ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

 

[bodecea]

LMAO!! Yeah, you just keep saying that. Its a great ploy to get the poor to be content.

Your Mom won't give you the money to take a woman out to dinner?

We have, "under God" in our pledge.

That no one is required to say.0

it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.

Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.

xoxo

Morals? YOu are really going to try to bring up morality? The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.

that is just between me and you. you have to go to hell before me. so, why should i take you seriously now?

So, you believe in hell too?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i gainsay your contention.

The problem is, you refuse to actually debate. You ask questions, that are answered. Then refuse to answer any questions. The arguments you make are mostly nonsense. An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.

lol. all you have is stories and fallacies. ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.