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

[WinterBorn]

You're right because you say so? Let us know when you get that check.

I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.

Morals? You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right. And then you want to talk about my morals? LOL! Too funny.

I haven't lied. You have to make up lies and claim you are right.

You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic. Are you actually 56 years old?

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.

That is not an ad hominem. This is not a personal attack. You said you do not lie. So are you actually 56 years old?

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, you post crap that has no bearing on what you quoted.

You lose.

lol. you understand nothing. That is the Only reason you think you win.

You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong. You don't address what they say. You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.

because you are. why should i take you seriously?

Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice. I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points. Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like. It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.

Yes they do. If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business. Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass. But you want their money for fun things, not needs.

In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd. The work was physically demanding. I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between. But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.

I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director. Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress. I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family. I did all of this to support them. But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.

The answer is No.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy. Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."

Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great. But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

It means solving for that capital phenomena. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy. Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.

Capital does not need to be given away to produce the positive multiplier effect on our economy. In fact, due to the lack of production by people like you, the effect is actually less.

But, once again, you did not answer my question.

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

it is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. a positive multiplier effect is capital not labor, working.

 

[danielpalos]

I already know who is the most honest. Let me know when you get some morals.

Morals? You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right. And then you want to talk about my morals? LOL! Too funny.

I haven't lied. You have to make up lies and claim you are right.

You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic. Are you actually 56 years old?

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.

That is not an ad hominem. This is not a personal attack. You said you do not lie. So are you actually 56 years old?

it is irrelevant. you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, the problem most people have with your plan is that you do nothing while they bust their ass. But you want their money for fun things, not needs.

In my life I have been a land surveyor, a lineman, and a part-time goatherd. The work was physically demanding. I worked in 100+ degree heat, single digit freezing weather, and everything in between. But you want to sit in your Mom's house, with all your needs met, and demand my money for taking women out to dinner.

I also worked in hotel mgmt and been a safety director. Not out in the weather, but subject to long hours and high stress. I have spent 25+ days a month on the road, away from my family. I did all of this to support them. But you want to "opt out of working" and still demand I pay for you to have disposable income for fun.

The answer is No.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that means improving the efficiency of our economy. Only the right wing has a problem with that much, "moral of goodwill toward men."

Solving the natural rate of unemployment is great. But that does not mean taking tax dollars and giving it to someone who doesn't need it.

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

It means solving for that capital phenomena. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is market friendly and produces a positive multiplier effect on our economy. Capital has to work not Labor under capitalism.

Capital does not need to be given away to produce the positive multiplier effect on our economy. In fact, due to the lack of production by people like you, the effect is actually less.

But, once again, you did not answer my question.

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

it is compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. a positive multiplier effect is capital not labor, working.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

Morals? You lie and you insist you are right because you say you are right. And then you want to talk about my morals? LOL! Too funny.

I haven't lied. You have to make up lies and claim you are right.

You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic. Are you actually 56 years old?

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.

That is not an ad hominem. This is not a personal attack. You said you do not lie. So are you actually 56 years old?

it is irrelevant. you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.

I am pointing out a specific lie you have told. A basic one.

You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told. So yours is an ad hominem. And one you are continually guilty of committing.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. you understand nothing. That is the Only reason you think you win.

You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong. You don't address what they say. You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.

because you are. why should i take you seriously?

Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice. I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points. Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like. It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.

Yes they do. If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business. Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.

a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

 

[WinterBorn]

You post things, then have people explain why you are wrong. You don't address what they say. You just go with your standard "You're wrong because I say you are wrong" nonsense.

because you are. why should i take you seriously?

Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice. I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points. Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like. It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.

Yes they do. If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business. Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.

a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.

Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

I haven't lied. You have to make up lies and claim you are right.

You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic. Are you actually 56 years old?

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.

That is not an ad hominem. This is not a personal attack. You said you do not lie. So are you actually 56 years old?

it is irrelevant. you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.

I am pointing out a specific lie you have told. A basic one.

You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told. So yours is an ad hominem. And one you are continually guilty of committing.

you have to understand economics to call it a lie.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

You haven't lied?

Let's start with the most basic. Are you actually 56 years old?

Let's start with the most basic, you need a valid argument not ad hominems.

That is not an ad hominem. This is not a personal attack. You said you do not lie. So are you actually 56 years old?

it is irrelevant. you must be the biggest liar if there is Any lying going on here.

I am pointing out a specific lie you have told. A basic one.

You, however, cannot point out a single lie I have told. So yours is an ad hominem. And one you are continually guilty of committing.

you have to understand economics to call it a lie.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

because you are. why should i take you seriously?

Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice. I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points. Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like. It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.

Yes they do. If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business. Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.

a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.

Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

your lack of an argument while alleging you are "more serious", is more laughable.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, whether you take me seriously is your choice. I don't care.

But one thing you should take seriously is your inability to debate/discuss an issue.

When you attempt to make a point, I actually take the time to address those points. Other than your suggestion that we use MailBoxes Ect for mailing checks to homeless people, you continue to ignore any points made that you do not like. It is like arguing with a child who simply stamps his feet and insists he is right.

anyone with an income has more options under capitalism.

Yes they do. If you want more options under capitalism, get a job or start a business. Your insistence that other people's income, and therefore their options, that they earned should be given to you simply because you want it is laughable.

a solution to simple poverty via a solution for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment seems economic, not laughable.

Your understanding of economics is elementary and self-serving.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

your lack of an argument while alleging you are "more serious", is more laughable.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation. you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation. you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation. you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation. you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."

Not what I asked. I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party, for any results.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

simply making more than the minimum wage should mean you don't need unemployment compensation. you don't have to work in an at-will employment State.

I have asked two very simple questions of you. (one in response to your claim that you do not lie)

I have a friend who retired at 50. He has a nice 401k that he worked hard to save money into. He lives quite well on his money. But he does not have a job. Do you think he should be able to draw unemployment?

Are you actually 56 years old.

Either can be answered with a Yes or a No. But feel free to elaborate after you actually answer the question.

i believe that person would feel they don't need unemployment compensation if they can "beat that wage on their own."

Not what I asked. I didn't ask what you think they would feel, but whether or not it should be allowed.

the homeless should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.