Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

As I have explained over and over and over, there is no abridgement of privileges or immunities in the UC laws.

And, as I have explained, you will not receive UC even if you do manage to convince a judge that there is.

The employer doesn't need good cause to fire.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[WinterBorn]

The employer doesn't need good cause to fire.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And the employee does not need good cause to quit.

Answer the question.

 

[danielpalos]

And the employee does not need good cause to quit.

Answer the question.

Yes, the employee currently and extra-Constitutionally is required to have Cause in an at-will employment State in order to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.

Our State legislature simply has no authority to abridge, deny, or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And,

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the employee currently and extra-Constitutionally is required to have Cause in an at-will employment State in order to qualify for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment State.

Our State legislature simply has not authority to abridge, deny, or disparage our privileges and immunities through unequal protection of the laws.

And,

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

Just answer the question, daniel.

 

[danielpalos]

Just answer the question, daniel.

Just answer the question of whether or not requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just answer the question of whether or not requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.

Why should I answer any question you ask? You have steadfastly refused to answer my question, not on in this thread but in numerous others.

You refuse to answer and yet you expect to have your questions answered? LMAO!!

Provide a reasonable and logical answer for my question and I will happily answer yours.

 

[danielpalos]

Why should I answer any question you ask? You have steadfastly refused to answer my question, not on in this thread but in numerous others.

You refuse to answer and yet you expect to have your questions answered? LMAO!!

Provide a reasonable and logical answer for my question and I will happily answer yours.

Because it is simple enough for any jury. Can I start proclaiming to any jurist where I may have standing, that you are simply being frivolous and should be sanctioned until you start bearing true witness?

 

[WinterBorn]

Because it is simple enough for any jury. Can I start proclaiming to any jurist where I may have standing, that you are simply being frivolous and should be sanctioned until you start bearing true witness?

I asked why you should receive an income from the tax payer, when you can support yourself and are capable of working.

What you posted is not an answer to that question.

 

[danielpalos]

I asked why you should receive an income from the tax payer, when you can support yourself and are capable of working.

What you posted is not an answer to that question.

I already informed you the first time that this is a Constitutional issue not subject to your fake morality.

 

[Mr Natural]

As is the case with most conservatives, I also favor deregulation of business, but this is one case that is screaming for MORE regulation, to a reasonable degree.

Socialism for me but not for thee?

 

[WinterBorn]

I already informed you the first time that this is a Constitutional issue not subject to your fake morality.

Dodging the question again.

Just answer it. I think everyone assumes you are just too lazy to work and want more money for doing nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism for me but not for thee?

The Expense of Government.

We should be trying to achieve scale economies whenever possible:

All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.

 

[danielpalos]

Dodging the question again.

Just answer it. I think everyone assumes you are just too lazy to work and want more money for doing nothing.

Your fake morality is not superior to Constitutional Law for Legal purposes, right-wingers.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your fake morality is not superior to Constitutional Law for Legal purposes, right-wingers.

Whether your argument about the constitutionality of the UC laws is accurate or not is not the answer to the question. In fact, it is largely irrelevant to the question.

 

[danielpalos]

Whether your argument about the constitutionality of the UC laws is accurate or not is not the answer to the question. In fact, it is largely irrelevant to the question.

It doesn't matter because Congress is already delegated the power to Tax for Legal purposes according to Law, right-wingers. Don't be illegal to the law, right-wingers.

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn't matter because Congress is already delegated the power to Tax for Legal purposes according to Law, right-wingers. Don't be illegal to the law, right-wingers.

If you were fighting for others to draw unemployment compensation without being eligible under the current laws, you might have some credibility here.

But you have consistently said that you would get UC as well. So my question is valid. Why won't you answer it?

No matter who has the power to tax for legal purposes, why should you draw an income from the tax coffers when you are capable of supporting yourself and capable of working? Isn't requiring that you be supported from the fruits of other people's labors immoral?

 

[danielpalos]

If you were fighting for others to draw unemployment compensation without being eligible under the current laws, you might have some credibility here.

But you have consistently said that you would get UC as well. So my question is valid. Why won't you answer it?

No matter who has the power to tax for legal purposes, why should you draw an income from the tax coffers when you are capable of supporting yourself and capable of working? Isn't requiring that you be supported from the fruits of other people's labors immoral?

You simply make up stories, storyteller. It is about equal protection of the Law for Legal purposes and to lead by example since we have a Statue of Liberty.

 

[WinterBorn]

You simply make up stories, storyteller. It is about equal protection of the Law for Legal purposes and to lead by example since we have a Statue of Liberty.

I am not making up anything. I am asking you a simple question.

You are making up replies to my question that have little or nothing to do with my question.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not making up anything. I am asking you a simple question.

You are making up replies to my question that have little or nothing to do with my question.

This is the Law for Legal purposes:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the Law for Legal purposes:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And you have said, over and over, that you will draw a check from UC if the law is changed. So my question remains valid.