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

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, being Legal to actual Law for juridical purposes is what is at issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, being Legal to actual Law for juridical purposes is what is at issue.

Still not an answer to my question.

For some reason you think you should receive tax payer funds for doing nothing. I am asking why you think that. Whether your case has merit, whether you win or not, and whether there is an abridgement of privileges is irrelevant to my question. My question is why you think you should be given tax payer's money when you can clearly support yourself and are capable of working but refuse to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

Still not an answer to my question.

For some reason you think you should receive tax payer funds for doing nothing. I am asking why you think that. Whether your case has merit, whether you win or not, and whether there is an abridgement of privileges is irrelevant to my question. My question is why you think you should be given tax payer's money when you can clearly support yourself and are capable of working but refuse to do so.

Your fake morality is irrelevant. What is at issue is equality and equal protection of the Laws for Legal purposes.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

Your fake morality is irrelevant. What is at issue is equality and equal protection of the Laws for Legal purposes.

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

The original OP was about rent control. Your divergence is your own choice.

My question still stands and is relevant to this sub-topic. Your refusal to answer shows you recognize your demand for an income from the tax coffers is immoral, or at the very least unethical.

 

[danielpalos]

The original OP was about rent control. Your divergence is your own choice.

My question still stands and is relevant to this sub-topic. Your refusal to answer shows you recognize your demand for an income from the tax coffers is immoral, or at the very least unethical.

How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

 

[WinterBorn]

How would any landlord be worse off with equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

Again, you are asking me a question while dodging mine.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, you are asking me a question while dodging mine.

Because your question is irrelevant and merely a distraction since you are not being required to work in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

How would any landlord be worse off under our form of Capitalism with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

 

[WinterBorn]

Because your question is irrelevant and merely a distraction since you are not being required to work in any at-will employment State.

My question is very relevant, since you plan to draw an income from the tax coffers if your court case falls in your favor.

I think asking why you think you should receive that income, despite your ability to support yourself and your unwillingness to work. Why should tax payers support you?

 

[WinterBorn]

How would any landlord be worse off under our form of Capitalism with equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

Give a real answer to my question and I will happily answer your question. As long as you refuse to answer my question, I will not answer yours.

 

[danielpalos]

My question is very relevant, since you plan to draw an income from the tax coffers if your court case falls in your favor.

I think asking why you think you should receive that income, despite your ability to support yourself and your unwillingness to work. Why should tax payers support you?

You don't have to work just to complain in an at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

Give a real answer to my question and I will happily answer your question. As long as you refuse to answer my question, I will not answer yours.

Your question is too subjective. What landlord would be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't have to work just to complain in an at-will employment State.

No, you do not. But why do you expect an income from the tax payers when you don't need it and are capable of working?

 

[WinterBorn]

Your question is too subjective. What landlord would be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?

Too subjective? LMAO!!!

I am not asking about why people should get that income.

I am asking why you specifically, expect an income at the tax payer's expense. That is not subjective at all. That is asking you for your reason(s) why you demand an income from the tax payers.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you do not. But why do you expect an income from the tax payers when you don't need it and are capable of working?

You are mistaken. We are entitled to equal protection of the laws and You don't Have to work in an at-will employment State; so tell me again how You have Any Standing whatsoever and are being more than an obstructionist troll.

 

[danielpalos]

Too subjective? LMAO!!!

I am not asking about why people should get that income.

I am asking why you specifically, expect an income at the tax payer's expense. That is not subjective at all. That is asking you for your reason(s) why you demand an income from the tax payers.

Yes. You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective. How would landlords be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?

 

[WinterBorn]

You are mistaken. We are entitled to equal protection of the laws and You don't Have to work in an at-will employment State; so tell me again how You have Any Standing whatsoever and are being more than an obstructionist troll.

I never said you had to work. Obviously you can support yourself without working.

What I am asking is why you think you deserve to be paid from the tax coffers. It really is a simple question.

 

[danielpalos]

I never said you had to work. Obviously you can support yourself without working.

What I am asking is why you think you deserve to be paid from the tax coffers. It really is a simple question.

Only right-wingers don't believe in equal protection of the laws? Vote blue not red!

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes. You need to understand the difference between objective and subjective. How would landlords be objectively worse off with equal protection of the laws?

I understand the difference. But your answer will be specific to why YOU expect to be paid from the tax coffers, so the subjectivity is fine. Your reason for demanding an income at the tax payer's expense is obviously subjective. In fact, it could not be anything other than subjective. But that subjectivity shows motivation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only right-wingers don't believe in equal protection of the laws? Vote blue not red!

Still avoiding the question.