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

[danielpalos]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

lol. the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.

This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.

What? What the fuck does that have to do with INCELS or this sub-topic about drawing unemployment if you quit your job?

 

[danielpalos]

only if you understand nothing about economics. higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the traditional practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) left her in agony, bedridden for a week then with painful periods every month and troubles conceiving when she married.

This is what is happening in Omars Nation and she does not even care enough to help.

it should be abolished in modern times.

the right wing should have to convince us of their moral sincerity, first.

we already know there are not enough morals to go around if we have the Expense of Government for the right wing to whine about.

It already is abolished every where we have jurisdiction.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, do you believe the gov't is responsible for taking care of the needs of the poor? Or are they responsible for taking care of the needs and wants of the poor?

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

lol. the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.

It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.

And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work. And that would be from the right AND the left.

 

[WinterBorn]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.

Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?

 

[WinterBorn]

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

Obviously most people do not think so. Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job. And that is rare indeed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Higher paid labor is not the issue. I am all for that. But that means you have to get a job to make that money.

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

No, they are not unlawful. The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.

If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.

But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of. And that is the way it should be.

 

[danielpalos]

both promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare. that means, there is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

lol. the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.

It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.

And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work. And that would be from the right AND the left.

capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.

 

[danielpalos]

Good question. I had never heard of it. I found this guardian article about it-

'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.

Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?

i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

Obviously most people do not think so. Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job. And that is rare indeed.

too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. no one is claiming you don't have to provide labor input to the economy to command a market based wage.

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

No, they are not unlawful. The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.

If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.

But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of. And that is the way it should be.

Yes, they are. All it takes is a class action.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is nothing in the federal doctrines that speaks of providing luxuries to those who opt out of work.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

lol. the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.

It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.

And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work. And that would be from the right AND the left.

capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.

It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare. Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance. All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.

 

[WinterBorn]

All they have to do is join the Global Citizens Movement, and cross the border with 33 dollars and they can work their problems out with some girl in Mexico.

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.

Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?

i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.

Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?

 

[WinterBorn]

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

Obviously most people do not think so. Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job. And that is rare indeed.

too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.

The people running the unemployment compensation are not ignorant of the law. They, like me, would wonder what is unequal about the protection under the law that employees and employers currently enjoy.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you are claiming that higher labor wages are relevant to this topic.

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

No, they are not unlawful. The entire point of the program is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed. It pays less than their employed wage and lasts only 6 months long.

If you actually think it is unlawful, feel free to challenge it in court.

But neither the unemployment compensation system not the welfare systems will fund your luxuries when you have your needs taken care of. And that is the way it should be.

Yes, they are. All it takes is a class action.

Feel free to file one. I doubt you will find a lawyer to take such a case. And the judge will probably toss it out as frivolous.

But please, do try and file one. I imagine reading about you trying to sue to get the federal gov't to rework the entire unemployment compensation system and welfare system so that you can scam money for luxuries would be quite entertaining.

I am all for the gov't providing for someone's needs.

I am against providing tax dollars for someone's luxuries when that person doesn't think it is important enough to get a job to pay for it.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the objective.

employment is at the will of either party unless EDD can prove a for-cause employment relationship was involved.

This changes nothing about what I said. Unless you can qualify for unemployment compensation under the current rules, you do not get tax payer funded benefits for luxuries. How many working people forego luxuries to pay their taxes and take care of necessities?

lol. the "current rules" are repugnant to the whole and entire concept of employment at the will of either party and put a downward pressure on wages and enables poverty.

It is a temporary financial assistance paid to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed. The natural rate of unemployment is solved by welfare programs.

And what more people find repugnant is expecting the tax payers to pay for luxuries for those who refuse to work. And that would be from the right AND the left.

capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is natural not temporary.

It is also not solved by unemployment compensation but by welfare. Welfare offers a longer term of aid, food stamps, and medical insurance. All of which those in the natural rate of unemployment need.

no, it won't and can't. means testing cannot solve for anything, but merely test for it.

 

[danielpalos]

...should we blame Capitalists for there no longer being any nice girls in modern times?

Why would we blame capitalists for something you only imagine? Who says there are no more nice girls in modern times?

capitalism is about capital based metrics not social based metrics.

Is calling girls "nice" a capital based metric?

i thought capitalism was about having enough capital, to insure promptness.

Is "promptness" your defining feature for "nice girls"?

i can "get results in two emails or less, under capitalism."

 

[danielpalos]

yes, solving for simple poverty puts an upward pressure on wages, on an Institutional basis.

Which, while good, has nothing to do with whether or not unemployment compensation is provided to someone who does not qualify under the current rules.

it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

Obviously most people do not think so. Only the very, very few who have no income but cannot pass a means test, but do not want a job. And that is rare indeed.

too bad there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, for the right wing.

The people running the unemployment compensation are not ignorant of the law. They, like me, would wonder what is unequal about the protection under the law that employees and employers currently enjoy.

that merely needs to be challenged. no one is claiming the right wing is about morals.