Why do Republicans bash socialism - when it's all around them?

[danielpalos]

i already told you what the proposed solution is.

First you claimed solutions. I bring up a disaster in left wing ran governments and now you switch to proposed, which failed in Finland. So you purposed solution has already failed.Why are left wing states not following your advice? Because it already failed.

The solution is equal protection of the law. Don't be such a floozy.

Again, you are misapplying the "equal protection clause. No court has or will ever rule in your trying to change the definition. Now, if you have a precedent for your definition please post it. Now back to the subject you refuse to take on because you can't defend it. Why do you defend failed left wing programs? It seems you are not taken seriously by the left or the right.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

 

[danielpalos]

you need valid arguments, floozy.

You need them

I stated facts

You lied

This has been proven

no, they haven't, floozy.

Yes it has been proven you lied and I stated facts.

You know this now answer the question without a false premise

i don't take floozies seriously.

All you have is blaming others and name calling. The sign of the weak.

only floozies, say that.

 

[Papageorgio]

i already told you what the proposed solution is.

First you claimed solutions. I bring up a disaster in left wing ran governments and now you switch to proposed, which failed in Finland. So you purposed solution has already failed.Why are left wing states not following your advice? Because it already failed.

The solution is equal protection of the law. Don't be such a floozy.

Again, you are misapplying the "equal protection clause. No court has or will ever rule in your trying to change the definition. Now, if you have a precedent for your definition please post it. Now back to the subject you refuse to take on because you can't defend it. Why do you defend failed left wing programs? It seems you are not taken seriously by the left or the right.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

What enforcement? Nothing in the way of enforcement can be done and the positive multiplier doesn’t exist as proven in Finland. The results had a negative effect. I live in the real world. I think this has about run its course. I’ll never agree with and you are trolling. You need to stop it, unless you have something different to add, you are just repeating the same over and over and we will never agree.

 

[danielpalos]

i already told you what the proposed solution is.

First you claimed solutions. I bring up a disaster in left wing ran governments and now you switch to proposed, which failed in Finland. So you purposed solution has already failed.Why are left wing states not following your advice? Because it already failed.

The solution is equal protection of the law. Don't be such a floozy.

Again, you are misapplying the "equal protection clause. No court has or will ever rule in your trying to change the definition. Now, if you have a precedent for your definition please post it. Now back to the subject you refuse to take on because you can't defend it. Why do you defend failed left wing programs? It seems you are not taken seriously by the left or the right.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

What enforcement? Nothing in the way of enforcement can be done and the positive multiplier doesn’t exist as proven in Finland. The results had a negative effect. I live in the real world. I think this has about run its course. I’ll never agree with and you are trolling. You need to stop it, unless you have something different to add, you are just repeating the same over and over and we will never agree.

apples and oranges. in our case we are solving simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

 

[Dr Grump]

A mixture does not work either

As we have been told many of those people do come from socialist nations in fact not just Mexico

Yes it does. Easily provable.

Which ones are socialist besides Venezuela (and not many are coming from there)...

No it is not provable at all

As many as can afford to come here from venezuela

You're the one who said they are coming from socialist nations. So which socialist nations are they coming from?
Tell us Oh Wise One. Take your time....

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no such thing as an at will employment state,.

Your claim is based on a proven fallacy making it false and not a solution.

Answer the question and offer a solution coward

Why do you believe we don't have at-will employment relations codified by State legislators?

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

 

[Soupnazi630]

A mixture does not work either

As we have been told many of those people do come from socialist nations in fact not just Mexico

Yes it does. Easily provable.

Which ones are socialist besides Venezuela (and not many are coming from there)...

No it is not provable at all

As many as can afford to come here from venezuela

You're the one who said they are coming from socialist nations. So which socialist nations are they coming from?
Tell us Oh Wise One. Take your time....

Cuba venezeula try reading ignorant one

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe we don't have at-will employment relations codified by State legislators?

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You need them

I stated facts

You lied

This has been proven

no, they haven't, floozy.

Yes it has been proven you lied and I stated facts.

You know this now answer the question without a false premise

i don't take floozies seriously.

Therefore you admit you are a liar who cannot be taken seriously.

Facts are facts and I have stated facts which prove you are a liar

lol. i don't take floozies seriously. you need to win at least One argument.

I win all arguments against you hence your proven lies

 

[Soupnazi630]

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.[

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

That is not a link dumbass .
You can provide no link and are a proven liar

You cited nothing

 

[Soupnazi630]

First you claimed solutions. I bring up a disaster in left wing ran governments and now you switch to proposed, which failed in Finland. So you purposed solution has already failed.Why are left wing states not following your advice? Because it already failed.

The solution is equal protection of the law. Don't be such a floozy.

Again, you are misapplying the "equal protection clause. No court has or will ever rule in your trying to change the definition. Now, if you have a precedent for your definition please post it. Now back to the subject you refuse to take on because you can't defend it. Why do you defend failed left wing programs? It seems you are not taken seriously by the left or the right.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

What enforcement? Nothing in the way of enforcement can be done and the positive multiplier doesn’t exist as proven in Finland. The results had a negative effect. I live in the real world. I think this has about run its course. I’ll never agree with and you are trolling. You need to stop it, unless you have something different to add, you are just repeating the same over and over and we will never agree.

apples and oranges. in our case we are solving simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

There is no such thing as a natural rate of unemployment in capitalism

The law is enforced

 

[Soupnazi630]

You need them

I stated facts

You lied

This has been proven

no, they haven't, floozy.

Yes it has been proven you lied and I stated facts.

You know this now answer the question without a false premise

i don't take floozies seriously.

All you have is blaming others and name calling. The sign of the weak.

only floozies, say that.

No it is true and everyone says it because it is all you do

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no such thing as an at will employment state,.

Your claim is based on a proven fallacy making it false and not a solution.

Answer the question and offer a solution coward

Why do you believe we don't have at-will employment relations codified by State legislators?

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

Still no link.

Still a proven liar

dear, you are simply incompetent.

Ugly bitch you are a liar and there is no such thing as an at will employment state.

You proved that there is no such thing which constitutes an outright admission that you are a liar.

Sorry not but the incompetent one is you who fails to back up a failed premise with a link

 

[danielpalos]

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.[

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

That is not a link dumbass .
You can provide no link and are a proven liar

You cited nothing

do your own research. i gave you the labor code.

 

[danielpalos]

The solution is equal protection of the law. Don't be such a floozy.

Again, you are misapplying the "equal protection clause. No court has or will ever rule in your trying to change the definition. Now, if you have a precedent for your definition please post it. Now back to the subject you refuse to take on because you can't defend it. Why do you defend failed left wing programs? It seems you are not taken seriously by the left or the right.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

What enforcement? Nothing in the way of enforcement can be done and the positive multiplier doesn’t exist as proven in Finland. The results had a negative effect. I live in the real world. I think this has about run its course. I’ll never agree with and you are trolling. You need to stop it, unless you have something different to add, you are just repeating the same over and over and we will never agree.

apples and oranges. in our case we are solving simple poverty by correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

In this case, enforcing the law could mean a positive multiplier effect and an Institutional upward pressure on wages to outpace inflation.

There is no such thing as a natural rate of unemployment in capitalism

The law is enforced

the whole and entire field of economics knows you are simply wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

no, they haven't, floozy.

Yes it has been proven you lied and I stated facts.

You know this now answer the question without a false premise

i don't take floozies seriously.

All you have is blaming others and name calling. The sign of the weak.

only floozies, say that.

No it is true and everyone says it because it is all you do

only the nine hundred ninety-nine say that, in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe we don't have at-will employment relations codified by State legislators?

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

Still no link.

Still a proven liar

dear, you are simply incompetent.

Ugly bitch you are a liar and there is no such thing as an at will employment state.

You proved that there is no such thing which constitutes an outright admission that you are a liar.

Sorry not but the incompetent one is you who fails to back up a failed premise with a link

only floozies are that incompetent.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.[

I said link.

No link


You lied

dear, i cited the Actual code. you are simply too inferior to take seriously.

I asked for a link

You provided no link

Proven liar

i cited the actual code.

don't be incompetent. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

That is not a link dumbass .
You can provide no link and are a proven liar

You cited nothing

do your own research. i gave you the labor code.

No you did not you only made some crap up which you always do.

A claim requires a link you cannot provide one proving you made up some ignorant crap

That is how it works liar.

No link you are exposed as a lying pos.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Link

California Labor Code 2922:

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.

Still no link.

Still a proven liar

dear, you are simply incompetent.

Ugly bitch you are a liar and there is no such thing as an at will employment state.

You proved that there is no such thing which constitutes an outright admission that you are a liar.

Sorry not but the incompetent one is you who fails to back up a failed premise with a link

only floozies are that incompetent.

Yes and you are the only one that incompetent proving you are the self proclaimed loser liar and floozy

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes it has been proven you lied and I stated facts.

You know this now answer the question without a false premise

i don't take floozies seriously.

All you have is blaming others and name calling. The sign of the weak.

only floozies, say that.

No it is true and everyone says it because it is all you do

only the nine hundred ninety-nine say that, in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.

Everyone says it and it is true a you know it is

We have absolutely proven you are a childish liar and uneducated turd

You admit it