Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits; if employment was at-will.

You've substantiated nothing, just repeated failed excuses. At will means you can quit, not that you get paid to quit.

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

 

[Papageorgio]

My LAW over rules the laws you try to establish. My LAW, is positive, it doesn’t know right or left, rich or poor. Your law is an excuse of failure, my LAW is built on success.

dear; all You have is an inferior argument; whatever shall You do, in any superior court.

My LAWS are natural, unlike your attempt at getting a court decision that is not law at all, just a failed attempt let others support your poor choices. My LAW is treats all equally and without regard to political affiliation, color of skin, race, sex or sexual orientation, my LAW is perfect, yours is a pipe dream of the lazy man.

Your laws are arbitrary and capricious.

What part of the LAW is arbitrary and capricious?

the law is at-will and is being applied, for-cause.

I'm sorry you are confusing the law with the LAW. I can see why, you don't know the law or the LAW.

 

[Papageorgio]

At will means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, and an employee can leave a job at anytime with no adverse consequences. Nothing is said about either party owing the other if the employee/employer relationship is terminated. Nothing said about employment being a right, nothing said that being unemployed gets you any benefits.

There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits; if employment was at-will.

You've substantiated nothing, just repeated failed excuses. At will means you can quit, not that you get paid to quit.

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

Cite your court decisions that show your argument. Wait you cannot because you have nothing but your interpretation which is clueless and Causeless.

Your circular arguments is extremely boring, do you got anything else or are you going to continue to troll the same ole BS?

 

[Papageorgio]

You've substantiated nothing, just repeated failed excuses. At will means you can quit, not that you get paid to quit.

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

 

[hadit]

There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits; if employment was at-will.

You've substantiated nothing, just repeated failed excuses. At will means you can quit, not that you get paid to quit.

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

Cite your court decisions that show your argument. Wait you cannot because you have nothing but your interpretation which is clueless and Causeless.

Your circular arguments is extremely boring, do you got anything else or are you going to continue to troll the same ole BS?

I'm predicting the latter.

 

[danielpalos]

dear; all You have is an inferior argument; whatever shall You do, in any superior court.

My LAWS are natural, unlike your attempt at getting a court decision that is not law at all, just a failed attempt let others support your poor choices. My LAW is treats all equally and without regard to political affiliation, color of skin, race, sex or sexual orientation, my LAW is perfect, yours is a pipe dream of the lazy man.

Your laws are arbitrary and capricious.

What part of the LAW is arbitrary and capricious?

the law is at-will and is being applied, for-cause.

I'm sorry you are confusing the law with the LAW. I can see why, you don't know the law or the LAW.

Our State Constitution is the supreme law of the State land, in Any conflict of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits; if employment was at-will.

You've substantiated nothing, just repeated failed excuses. At will means you can quit, not that you get paid to quit.

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

Cite your court decisions that show your argument. Wait you cannot because you have nothing but your interpretation which is clueless and Causeless.

Your circular arguments is extremely boring, do you got anything else or are you going to continue to troll the same ole BS?

I am citing our State Constitution; bills of attainder are prohibited to our legislators.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it doesn't. at-will means just that. for-cause is what is being applied. the right wing doesn't care because it isn't about guns.

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

 

[Papageorgio]

My LAWS are natural, unlike your attempt at getting a court decision that is not law at all, just a failed attempt let others support your poor choices. My LAW is treats all equally and without regard to political affiliation, color of skin, race, sex or sexual orientation, my LAW is perfect, yours is a pipe dream of the lazy man.

Your laws are arbitrary and capricious.

What part of the LAW is arbitrary and capricious?

the law is at-will and is being applied, for-cause.

I'm sorry you are confusing the law with the LAW. I can see why, you don't know the law or the LAW.

Our State Constitution is the supreme law of the State land, in Any conflict of laws.

So, you have no clue and you have no no you clueless one.

 

[Papageorgio]

Back up what you're saying with the text of the law or a court decision.

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

 

[danielpalos]

Your laws are arbitrary and capricious.

What part of the LAW is arbitrary and capricious?

the law is at-will and is being applied, for-cause.

I'm sorry you are confusing the law with the LAW. I can see why, you don't know the law or the LAW.

Our State Constitution is the supreme law of the State land, in Any conflict of laws.

So, you have no clue and you have no no you clueless one.

Constitutional law is more, well regulated than that.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, equal protection of the law means exactly that. an employment relationship is either, for-cause or at-will. it is Presumed at-will in any at-will employment State.

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

You're doing exactly what I expected, pulling it out of your head and insisting that your interpretation is correct with no grounding in reality. If you were correct, there would be legal text and court decisions you could cite. There are none.

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

 

[danielpalos]

since when does equal mean, unequal?

Bills of attainder are also Prohibited to both the State and the federal government.

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, you misapply the phrases and take them literally which is quite understandable for those with simple minds that cannot connect the dots.

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, you have nothing but repeal.

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

That is not a good legal argument. Just your non-legal and unsubstantiated opinion?

 

[Papageorgio]

It seems you have nothing but crying and whining.

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

That is not a good legal argument. Just your non-legal and unsubstantiated opinion?

And you still have nothing. That is it! No court date! You haven't filed papers and in the end, you will have your case tossed out of court. So I have more than an unsubstantiated opinion, you have a mere hope of a possible court date at some possible future time. No legal precedent, no legal expertise and your argument is based historical evidence. Your argument is based on the name of a doctrine and not the actual doctrine it's self. Good luck with it, anything else? Because the last several pages you have had nothing else, just repeat the same old crap you have spewed for a long time.

 

[danielpalos]

that is just your opinion; my opinion is, my argument is better than your argument.

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

That is not a good legal argument. Just your non-legal and unsubstantiated opinion?

And you still have nothing. That is it! No court date! You haven't filed papers and in the end, you will have your case tossed out of court. So I have more than an unsubstantiated opinion, you have a mere hope of a possible court date at some possible future time. No legal precedent, no legal expertise and your argument is based historical evidence. Your argument is based on the name of a doctrine and not the actual doctrine it's self. Good luck with it, anything else? Because the last several pages you have had nothing else, just repeat the same old crap you have spewed for a long time.

Nobody on this site has refuted any of my arguments.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

That is not a good legal argument. Just your non-legal and unsubstantiated opinion?

And you still have nothing. That is it! No court date! You haven't filed papers and in the end, you will have your case tossed out of court. So I have more than an unsubstantiated opinion, you have a mere hope of a possible court date at some possible future time. No legal precedent, no legal expertise and your argument is based historical evidence. Your argument is based on the name of a doctrine and not the actual doctrine it's self. Good luck with it, anything else? Because the last several pages you have had nothing else, just repeat the same old crap you have spewed for a long time.

Nobody on this site has refuted any of my arguments.

Everyone has shut you down, you just don’t want to accept others ideas. You misapplied two phrases and two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[hadit]

Not only mine but the courts and the law support my argument.

Got anything new or just more of the same?

When was the first or last time, the equal protection argument was used in Court?

Just more of the same I see. I’m sure your silliness has been brought to court before and people with common sense throw it out and we never hear about it because it was silly and never was, never has or never will be taken seriously.

That is not a good legal argument. Just your non-legal and unsubstantiated opinion?

And you still have nothing. That is it! No court date! You haven't filed papers and in the end, you will have your case tossed out of court. So I have more than an unsubstantiated opinion, you have a mere hope of a possible court date at some possible future time. No legal precedent, no legal expertise and your argument is based historical evidence. Your argument is based on the name of a doctrine and not the actual doctrine it's self. Good luck with it, anything else? Because the last several pages you have had nothing else, just repeat the same old crap you have spewed for a long time.

Nobody on this site has refuted any of my arguments.

Yes, we have, many times. You just refuse to acknowledge reality and resume spouting the same failed excuses.