Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

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.

You have nothing but fallacy. Simply because the right wing claims it, doesn't mean it is right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Y'all are just clueless and Causeless.

 

[hadit]

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.

Y'all are just clueless and Causeless.

At least we know when we've destroyed a line of failed excuses.

 

[danielpalos]

Only in right wing fantasy. Employment is at the will of either party.

 

[hadit]

Only in right wing fantasy. Employment is at the will of either party.

Sure is. Either one of you can terminate the job at any time. Like has been said many times, cite the text of a law or court decision that supports any other interpretation. I have zero confidence you will do so, so I'm going to preemptively declare your argument destroyed yet another time.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

You have nothing but fallacy. Simply because the right wing claims it, doesn't mean it is right.

You have nothing, either bring it or shut the fuck up.

You have an unproven untested idea and pretty stupid logic relying on a court to ignore the law and go with your interpretation of a name of a law.

Again, you have nothing, nothing new and no valid argument to take to a court.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

 

[hadit]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

 

[hadit]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

The point is, you are trying to build a legal case from the name of a law without considering the actual text of that law. As long as you try to do that, you will only fail. The fact that you continue to do it the exact same way over and over again after seeing your argument demolished so many times means you are a poorly programmed bot, incredibly locked into your fantasy and immune to reason, or insane, since you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

 

[Papageorgio]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

We don’t have a civil right to have a job. We have a right to pursue happiness.

 

[saveliberty]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

 

[hadit]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

As near as I can tell, he wants to be paid $15/hr to stay home and smoke pot. That's about all he's ever talked about.

 

[saveliberty]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

As near as I can tell, he wants to be paid $15/hr to stay home and smoke pot. That's about all he's ever talked about.

He must have used the Constitution to roll a joint.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

The point is, you are trying to build a legal case from the name of a law without considering the actual text of that law. As long as you try to do that, you will only fail. The fact that you continue to do it the exact same way over and over again after seeing your argument demolished so many times means you are a poorly programmed bot, incredibly locked into your fantasy and immune to reason, or insane, since you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.

Bills of attainder are unconstitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

We don’t have a civil right to have a job. We have a right to pursue happiness.

It is about equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

Equal protection of the law.

 

[saveliberty]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

Equal protection of the law.

Specifically, how are you being denied equal protection?

 

[Papageorgio]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

We don’t have a civil right to have a job. We have a right to pursue happiness.

It is about equal protection of the law.

More of the same failed ideas. You are a dense idiot, but a consistent idiot.

 

[danielpalos]

Our legislature is denied and disparaged authority over Any forms of bills of attainder.

A bot could come up with a more coherent sequence of words. I think we've broken him.

The point is, our legislators have no authority to deny or disparage our civil rights without due process.

What civil right(s) are you being denied?

The law is employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for Any reason.