$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[dblack]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[bodecea]

And this is according to the Far Left CBO.

Undoubtably it would be a lot more.

Any poor person who needs to work deserves this shit sandwich they are being served- if they actually voted for the Dems.

Raising minimum wage to $15 would cost 1.4 million jobs, CBO says

Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would cost 1.4 million jobs over the next four years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

www.cnbc.com

How many jobs did the trump Administration destroy?

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

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 UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

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.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

Actually, since you are the only person in the entire country I've ever heard say anything about it, you are ignorant of the law. If you are right, the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law. You are not right.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

You're making less sense than normal.

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

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 UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

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.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

Actually, since you are the only person in the entire country I've ever heard say anything about it, you are ignorant of the law. If you are right, the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law. You are not right.

Now you just need to prove your currently unsubstantiated opinion with a valid argument. Good luck.

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

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 UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

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.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

Actually, since you are the only person in the entire country I've ever heard say anything about it, you are ignorant of the law. If you are right, the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law. You are not right.

Now you just need to prove your currently unsubstantiated opinion with a valid argument. Good luck.

Actually, no. You are asserting that the law is being applied incorrectly, therefore you should substantiate your argument. You need to show, for example, where it is written in the law that the separate issues are linked. You can't just, for example, insist that they are. Show the written text that specifically links the two, or show a court decision that links them. Remember, there is no law preventing you from quitting a job in an at-will state, no matter whether you can get UC or not. I know you've said there is, but you have failed to show the text of a law that states you cannot do so.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

 

[danielpalos]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

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 UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

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.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

Actually, since you are the only person in the entire country I've ever heard say anything about it, you are ignorant of the law. If you are right, the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law. You are not right.

Now you just need to prove your currently unsubstantiated opinion with a valid argument. Good luck.

Actually, no. You are asserting that the law is being applied incorrectly, therefore you should substantiate your argument. You need to show, for example, where it is written in the law that the separate issues are linked. You can't just, for example, insist that they are. Show the written text that specifically links the two, or show a court decision that links them. Remember, there is no law preventing you from quitting a job in an at-will state, no matter whether you can get UC or not. I know you've said there is, but you have failed to show the text of a law that states you cannot do so.

I have already shown it. You simply appeal to ignorance of the law. There is only one law that governs at-will employment in an at-will employment State. Employment is either at-will or the Agency of the State responsible for administering unemployment compensation benefits must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed.

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

 

[hadit]

There's no incentive for anyone to overturn it. It's means tested and everyone is fine with that. Well, except you. You're the only one who thinks you have a constitutional case no one has figured out yet.

Simply because a right winger like You says so? There was no incentive to abolish slavery either. Why did we have a civil war over it?

Because there WAS incentive to abolish it. It was a moral travesty as you would know if you studied any history at all.

I have studied history. And, someone is arguing about it on political forums. Unequal protection of the laws is a travesty.

No bum checks for you!

I must not be a bum, only your false morality has a problem.

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 UC law does not do that.

Yes, it does. There is no basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State. No fault insurance does not require good cause.

Since when does it not require good cause? UC law is quite specific in that you can only collect if you were laid off. And yes, absolutely there IS "basis for requiring good cause for unemployment benefits in an at-will employment State". There is no law that states otherwise. It's all in your mind, nowhere else.

UC is means tested, just like welfare and food stamps are means tested. And no, quitting a job and being compensated for losing a job through no fault of your own are two different things altogether. They are only linked in your mind.

UC rules conflict with State law regarding employment at-will. States (nor Agency) cannot enact laws that are repugnant to the equal protection clause.

There is no conflict. If there was there could be no means testing anywhere. UC is means tested and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job. That's all been made up in your head.

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or their political sincerity.

Yes, there is a conflict as has been explained several times. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Means testing is not a conflict despite your fantasy and there is no legal barrier to you quitting a job.

Yes, there is. Can you currently, legally collect unemployment compensation when faithfully executing our own at-will employment laws?

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

There is no basis for any legal prejudice regarding at-will employment law or equal protection of that law for any benefits administered by any State.

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.

Of course you can legally quit a job without violating any at-will employment laws because they are completely separate issues. You can quit, be fired or laid off. If you get laid off you can qualify for UC, and UC doesn't effect whether you're allowed to quit or not. It's really that simple.

It is not separate at all. That is your ignorance of the law.

Actually, since you are the only person in the entire country I've ever heard say anything about it, you are ignorant of the law. If you are right, the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law. You are not right.

Now you just need to prove your currently unsubstantiated opinion with a valid argument. Good luck.

Actually, no. You are asserting that the law is being applied incorrectly, therefore you should substantiate your argument. You need to show, for example, where it is written in the law that the separate issues are linked. You can't just, for example, insist that they are. Show the written text that specifically links the two, or show a court decision that links them. Remember, there is no law preventing you from quitting a job in an at-will state, no matter whether you can get UC or not. I know you've said there is, but you have failed to show the text of a law that states you cannot do so.

I have already shown it. You simply appeal to ignorance of the law. There is only one law that governs at-will employment in an at-will employment State. Employment is either at-will or the Agency of the State responsible for administering unemployment compensation benefits must prove a for-cause employment relationship existed.

That is not the text of a law nor does it establish a link between at-will employment and UC.

At-will does not impact whether you get compensated for leaving a job and UC does not impact whether you can legally quit a job. I cite as evidence the thousands of people who quit jobs every day and don't get UC while those who are laid off do get it. Face it, you're claiming that the entire legal profession is ignorant of the law since you're the only one saying what you're saying.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

Please cite anyone who takes you seriously and thinks you "resort to the fewest fallacies".

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the text of a law nor does it establish a link between at-will employment and UC.

Yes, it does. Why do you think it doesn't?

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

Please cite anyone who takes you seriously and thinks you "resort to the fewest fallacies".

Anyone who understands economics and knows how to recognize fallacies. That leaves out most of the right wing.

 

[hadit]

That is not the text of a law nor does it establish a link between at-will employment and UC.

Yes, it does. Why do you think it doesn't?

Because they are two different subjects. Compensating people who were laid off from a job doesn't make it illegal for you to quit a job. Therefore, there is no conflict. You just don't get compensated, and shouldn't.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

Please cite anyone who takes you seriously and thinks you "resort to the fewest fallacies".

Anyone who understands economics and knows how to recognize fallacies. That leaves out most of the right wing.

Nice generalities, but totally meaningless. No one, and I mean no one, has agreed with you.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not the text of a law nor does it establish a link between at-will employment and UC.

Yes, it does. Why do you think it doesn't?

Because they are two different subjects. Compensating people who were laid off from a job doesn't make it illegal for you to quit a job. Therefore, there is no conflict. You just don't get compensated, and shouldn't.

How can employment at-will be two different things in any at-will employment State? Yes, there is a conlict of laws.

 

[danielpalos]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

Please cite anyone who takes you seriously and thinks you "resort to the fewest fallacies".

Anyone who understands economics and knows how to recognize fallacies. That leaves out most of the right wing.

Nice generalities, but totally meaningless. No one, and I mean no one, has agreed with you.

Not any right wingers, that is for sure. Y'all have nothing but appeals to ignorance (of economics, ethics, the law, and morals).

 

[hadit]

That is not the text of a law nor does it establish a link between at-will employment and UC.

Yes, it does. Why do you think it doesn't?

Because they are two different subjects. Compensating people who were laid off from a job doesn't make it illegal for you to quit a job. Therefore, there is no conflict. You just don't get compensated, and shouldn't.

How can employment at-will be two different things in any at-will employment State? Yes, there is a conlict of laws.

Does UC law make it illegal for you to quit a job? Yes or no.

1. You can collect UC if you're laid off from a job. Does that make it illegal for you to quit?
2. You can't collect UC if you quit a job. Does that make it illegal for you to quit?
3. You can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, but unless you're fired for cause you can collect UC. Does that make it illegal for you to quit?

That's all you have to answer. You keep claiming UC law prevents you from quitting a job but won't answer those very basic questions that establish the truth.

 

[hadit]

I do it, (i.e. respond to Daniel Palos’s posts) for the entertainment factor as well as target practice. He is predictable, which means I can get him to say what I want him to say, then I can skewer his arguments yet again. He has a pattern. In a short while, he will sink into even less coherence, then disappear for a while only to pop up again with the exact same set of claims. In his mind he's the most brilliant legal mind there is and he's found things in the law no one has ever considered before. It's kind of fun watching him get wrapped up in knots, especially when I get him to contradict himself. Then he really is fun to watch.

Hadit, when you were a child, did you enjoy putting a lighted cigarette up near trapped insects, or pulling the wing off butterflies? Were you a diabolical child?

No. I still hold out hope some times that if I can get him to contradict himself enough there will be cracks in his armor and eventually some truth will break through.

Right wingers are simply hypocrites, not enough morals to go around on the right wing to bear true witness?

You tenaciously cling to your fallacies and fantasies. It's funny to watch.

A right winger claiming that. how droll. We know who the Greatest of the Great is for the Right Wing; y'all voted for him.

Ronaldous Maxis?

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about the law; scores of legal fallacies being dismissed is proof with the full faith and credit of public acts.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think take you seriously?

Everybody who understands economics and that I resort to the fewest fallacies.

Has anyone ever posted here to that effect?

Not those of the Opposing View, that is for sure.

Please cite anyone who takes you seriously and thinks you "resort to the fewest fallacies".

Anyone who understands economics and knows how to recognize fallacies. That leaves out most of the right wing.

Nice generalities, but totally meaningless. No one, and I mean no one, has agreed with you.

Not any right wingers, that is for sure. Y'all have nothing but appeals to ignorance (of economics, ethics, the law, and morals).

No leftwingers agree with you and your fallacies either.