Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.And where are they now?Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Unsubstantiated?
When was the last bum payment you received?
I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Are dependent on uniform operation of at-will employment laws?I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Nothing but express law? Nothing in your understanding proves States are delegated any social power to enact laws which have the effect of unequal protection.This is the law: Section 2922. 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.Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.
The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party
Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.
Still no bum payments.
It has nothing to do with your false Christian morality.
Nothing in your post proves you're entitled to unemployment compensation for quitting or never working.
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
Raising wages causes INFLATION.Wages need to outpace inflation.We thought minimum wage was $20 bucks an hour with inflation? That's 70% of the work forceJust another reason why nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.Yeah so everyone eventually makes minimum wage, no thanksThe minimum wage is going to be indexed to inflation.
He likes to pretend we can just artificially set the MW to wherever he wants it without any negative repercussions at all. Ask him why we don't just raise it $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.Raising wages causes INFLATION.Wages need to outpace inflation.We thought minimum wage was $20 bucks an hour with inflation? That's 70% of the work forceJust another reason why nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.Yeah so everyone eventually makes minimum wage, no thanksThe minimum wage is going to be indexed to inflation.
Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.
Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.And where are they now?Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Unsubstantiated?
When was the last bum payment you received?
You confuse means tested programs to employment at will law. How typical of right wing fantasizers.I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Are dependent on uniform operation of at-will employment laws?I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Nothing but express law? Nothing in your understanding proves States are delegated any social power to enact laws which have the effect of unequal protection.This is the law: Section 2922. 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.Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.
The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party
Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.
Still no bum payments.
It has nothing to do with your false Christian morality.
Nothing in your post proves you're entitled to unemployment compensation for quitting or never working.
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
Or are you so blindly focused on the loophole you think you've discovered that would allow you to collect a salary for simply existing that you can't even consider anything else?
What doesn't cause inflation? Inflation happens regardless; even the minimum wage stagnating for around a decade did not prevent inflation. And, supply side economics must be good for something. By solving for simply poverty via market friendly means, means Capitalists can optimize for their bottom line with full Capital cognitive sonance.Raising wages causes INFLATION.Wages need to outpace inflation.We thought minimum wage was $20 bucks an hour with inflation? That's 70% of the work forceJust another reason why nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.Yeah so everyone eventually makes minimum wage, no thanksThe minimum wage is going to be indexed to inflation.
The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.
No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.And where are they now?Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Unsubstantiated?
When was the last bum payment you received?
Thirty-five dollars an hour has already been proved as a concept by Gravity Payments.He likes to pretend we can just artificially set the MW to wherever he wants it without any negative repercussions at all. Ask him why we don't just raise it $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.Raising wages causes INFLATION.Wages need to outpace inflation.We thought minimum wage was $20 bucks an hour with inflation? That's 70% of the work forceJust another reason why nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.Yeah so everyone eventually makes minimum wage, no thanksThe minimum wage is going to be indexed to inflation.
There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.
Nope, you are so blindly focused on trying to get paid for doing nothing that you can't even consider that laws legitimately apply to subsets of people. UC is means tested law. If you meet the criteria you can collect. If you don't, then you can't.You confuse means tested programs to employment at will law. How typical of right wing fantasizers.I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Are dependent on uniform operation of at-will employment laws?I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Nothing but express law? Nothing in your understanding proves States are delegated any social power to enact laws which have the effect of unequal protection.This is the law: Section 2922. 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.Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.
The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party
Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.
Still no bum payments.
It has nothing to do with your false Christian morality.
Nothing in your post proves you're entitled to unemployment compensation for quitting or never working.
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
Or are you so blindly focused on the loophole you think you've discovered that would allow you to collect a salary for simply existing that you can't even consider anything else?
Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.And where are they now?Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Unsubstantiated?
When was the last bum payment you received?
You are the one confused. It is about equal protection of express laws not your false right wing morality.Nope, you are so blindly focused on trying to get paid for doing nothing that you can't even consider that laws legitimately apply to subsets of people. UC is means tested law. If you meet the criteria you can collect. If you don't, then you can't.You confuse means tested programs to employment at will law. How typical of right wing fantasizers.I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Are dependent on uniform operation of at-will employment laws?I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Nothing but express law? Nothing in your understanding proves States are delegated any social power to enact laws which have the effect of unequal protection.This is the law: Section 2922. 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.Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.
The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party
Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.
Still no bum payments.
It has nothing to do with your false Christian morality.
Nothing in your post proves you're entitled to unemployment compensation for quitting or never working.
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
Or are you so blindly focused on the loophole you think you've discovered that would allow you to collect a salary for simply existing that you can't even consider anything else?
The two are not related in the real world, only in your head are they related. UC is means tested as it should be.There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.
IOW, you can't name any because they don't exist.Right wingers disagreeing with me while having no valid arguments for rebuttal is all the proof I need.No one agrees with you. If you think they do, name them.Only right wingers disagree with me. Y'all prefer to bear false witness and practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the Poor; that is all.And they went away because enough people agreed they were unconstitutional and wrong. That's not going to happen with UC. You're simply wrong and making the whole thing up in your head. No one agrees with you.How long did that take? They were Wrong not Right (wing) to begin with.And where are they now?Black codes actually happened. Your understanding is simply full of fallacy.Your unsubstantiated opinion and appeal to emotions means nothing.Proof, right wingers are just plain political hypocrites about less fortunate "illegals" to the law.
Proof that you're not going to get a bum payment, just for sitting on your ass.
Unsubstantiated?
When was the last bum payment you received?
I cannot get Medicaid and I cannot get food stamps. That is means testing, not unequal protection. If you didn't get laid off from a job, you can't collect UC. That is means testing, not unequal protection.You are the one confused. It is about equal protection of express laws not your false right wing morality.Nope, you are so blindly focused on trying to get paid for doing nothing that you can't even consider that laws legitimately apply to subsets of people. UC is means tested law. If you meet the criteria you can collect. If you don't, then you can't.You confuse means tested programs to employment at will law. How typical of right wing fantasizers.I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Are dependent on uniform operation of at-will employment laws?I cannot get Medicaid. Is that unequal protection?Nothing but express law? Nothing in your understanding proves States are delegated any social power to enact laws which have the effect of unequal protection.This is the law: Section 2922. 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.Means nothing (since the right wing also had no problem with unConstitutional black codes.)You made the assertion, you need to back it up. Now you're just slinging things around with no idea what you're talking about. The fact that UC law has stood for all this time with no attempt to make it apply to those who are not, have not, and will not be employees tells me that no legal scholars agree with you.
The bottom line is, you're making the whole thing up and you're the only one who believes the law as written applies the way you want it to.
The is employment at the will of either party not just one party for any benefits administered by a State for the general welfare of the people.
The is employment at the will of either party
Yup, no one can force you to work.....obviously.
Still no bum payments.
It has nothing to do with your false Christian morality.
Nothing in your post proves you're entitled to unemployment compensation for quitting or never working.
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
I cannot get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?
Or are you so blindly focused on the loophole you think you've discovered that would allow you to collect a salary for simply existing that you can't even consider anything else?
Simply because a right winger says so? You need the "gospel Truth" for that.The two are not related in the real world, only in your head are they related. UC is means tested as it should be.There is nothing, at-will about means testing. You simply appeal to ignorance with false analogies.The law says people can get food stamps. I can't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection?Dude, the Law is employment at the will of Either party. Where does it say only one party gets full protection of the law?Have any of them ever said that UC law covers those who have never and never will be employees? That is the question, your wandering far afield is meaningless. Have any of them ever talked about a linkage between the equal protection clause and UC laws?No legal scholar anywhere disagrees with the equal protection clause in our several Constitutions. Only right wingers have a problem being legal to the law, but have no problem practicing the abomination of hypocrisy upon less fortunate "illegals".Where has a single legal scholar ever agreed with you?
Again, I don't get food stamps. Is that unequal protection? If you won't answer that, consider yourself painted into the corner yet again.
