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

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it is the current rules that are "unlawful" and should be repealed.

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance. That is all. If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it. It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

 

[WinterBorn]

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."

Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well. Unless you are just hiring hookers. And few people would call those "nice girls".

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance. That is all. If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it. It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well. Unless you are just hiring hookers. And few people would call those "nice girls".

if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."

 

[danielpalos]

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance. That is all. If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it. It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.

It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law. It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.

There is equal protection under the law. And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.

 

[WinterBorn]

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."

Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well. Unless you are just hiring hookers. And few people would call those "nice girls".

if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."

Easy way to fix that. Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance. That is all. If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it. It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.

It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law. It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.

There is equal protection under the law. And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.

there is no appeal to ignorance of equal protection of the law, laws,

 

[danielpalos]

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."

Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well. Unless you are just hiring hookers. And few people would call those "nice girls".

if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."

Easy way to fix that. Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.

i get "harassed for really really serious relationships not sex."

 

[danielpalos]

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Means testing merely shows whether or not they need the assistance. That is all. If you don't need assistance, for example if someone else is taking care of you, you don't get it. It is to help people who need it, not to fund luxuries. If you want luxuries, get a job.

means testing has nothing to do with market friendliness or equal protection of State law.

It isn't supposed to have anything to do with market friendliness or equal protection under the law. It is to determine if the applicant needs the money that was taken from tax payers who worked to earn it.

There is equal protection under the law. And "market friendliness" is not a function of either program.

there is no appeal to ignorance of equal protection of the law, laws,

This phrase is one of your quick replies when you have nothing to say. I did not appeal to ignorance. I made a statement, and you ignored it.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

Sounds like you can get results in two emails or less under socialism as well. Unless you are just hiring hookers. And few people would call those "nice girls".

if i correspond for more than a few emails for free, women either "harass me for a really really serious relationship or money or both."

Easy way to fix that. Just tell them you are unemployed, not looking for a job, and that you live with your mother.

i get "harassed for really really serious relationships not sex."

By women who either don't know you or don't know your situation. Everyone gets the "Hi, I'd love to get to know you" emails.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about enforcing State law.

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

 

[WinterBorn]

They are enforcing state and federal laws. Unless you can finally tell me what is unequal about the system where you quit and the employer continues to work, and the employer gets paid and you do not.

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "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."

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, you claimed it was not equal protection under the law because the employer still had an income. What you forget is that the employer did not quit his/her job.

 

[danielpalos]

you don't know what you are talking about and simply stereotype, storyteller.

Stereotype? YOu just pick words out of the air, don't you? Who did I stereotype?

lol. see what i mean. i gave you the definition.

Thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said in the post you quoted had anything to do with a definition. You accused me of stereotyping and there was no stereotyping.

Yes, you gave the definition of "at-will employment". You didn't say why it was unequal if you quit. We know the definition.

"...and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" is a pretty good definition of the employee side of it. You are free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work. But none of that means you will continue to get paid.

lol. employment is at the will of either party. there is no for-cause requirement in any at-will employment State.

lol

Absolute nonsense. If you break the law or company rules, you are fired for cause. That way you will not be rehired and you will likely not get hired other places. Plus, you are not qualified for unemployment compensation.

there is no for-cause requirement in an at-will employment State. you merely appeal to ignorance.

This is the Law that should be enforced:

An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other.  Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.