So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

We have, "under God" in our pledge.

That no one is required to say.0

it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.

Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.

xoxo

Morals? YOu are really going to try to bring up morality? The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.

that is just between me and you. you have to go to hell before me. so, why should i take you seriously now?

So, you believe in hell too?

it comes from a Tome on Morals. and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women. Coincidence or conspiracy?

 

[bodecea]

The problem is, you refuse to actually debate. You ask questions, that are answered. Then refuse to answer any questions. The arguments you make are mostly nonsense. An example would be your argument in favor of unemployment for anyone without a job, even if they quit their job and refuse to look for another.

lol. all you have is stories and fallacies. ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

 

[Meathead]

lol. all you have is stories and fallacies. ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. all you have is stories and fallacies. ad hominems are nothing but fallacy.

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

we usually try to get along.

 

[danielpalos]

I guess living at home with mom in one's 50s is a winning card hand.

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.

 

[Meathead]

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.

Happy ending?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.

Happy ending?

...girlfriends can simply expect me to be a good boyfriend in modern times.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is equal protection. The employer is protected from legal action for firing someone. And the employee is protected from legal action from quitting.

Equal protection of the law is not about financial compensation.

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

 

[WinterBorn]

That no one is required to say.0

it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.

Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.

xoxo

Morals? YOu are really going to try to bring up morality? The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.

that is just between me and you. you have to go to hell before me. so, why should i take you seriously now?

So, you believe in hell too?

it comes from a Tome on Morals. and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women. Coincidence or conspiracy?

A "Tome on Morals"? LOL!! It is obvious you have not read the Bible. Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament. So Hell is only for Christians.

 

[danielpalos]

The Law is, employment at the will of either party not just the employer for any benefits.

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are the one implying there is something inherently Bad about living with an elderly parent.

I don't know about "bad"... But definitely sad.

why is that? i help out around the house. i am working on container gardening and practicing Tolerance with my elderly mother.

And I'm sure the two of you are very happy together.

Is incel of fat-acceptance movement which has you so exited?

i prefer if girlfriends help me out with yoga and full body massage.

I'm sure you do.

 

[danielpalos]

it is still there and provides a basis for my moral argument with St. Peter.

Let the "richest guy fit through the eye of a needle, first." before being taken seriously regarding morals.

xoxo

Morals? YOu are really going to try to bring up morality? The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.

that is just between me and you. you have to go to hell before me. so, why should i take you seriously now?

So, you believe in hell too?

it comes from a Tome on Morals. and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women. Coincidence or conspiracy?

A "Tome on Morals"? LOL!! It is obvious you have not read the Bible. Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament. So Hell is only for Christians.

i know i don't have to take You seriously about morals.

 

[WinterBorn]

Exactly. And the employee is protected as well. You are allowed to quit. You will be paid for any hours worked and not yet paid for. You must be offered COBRA benefits that allow you to continue to have your health insurance, as long as you pay the entire premium. That is offered even if you quit.

Once again, you want to make unemployment compensation into a welfare program. It was never intended to be that.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

 

[WinterBorn]

Morals? YOu are really going to try to bring up morality? The guy who tells his female friends that is she won't help him when he is horny, he won't be her friend??

While I am richer than you (sets the bar pretty low), I am not what most would call a rich many, financially speaking.

that is just between me and you. you have to go to hell before me. so, why should i take you seriously now?

So, you believe in hell too?

it comes from a Tome on Morals. and, we have "In God We Trust" on our lucre, not on our women. Coincidence or conspiracy?

A "Tome on Morals"? LOL!! It is obvious you have not read the Bible. Oh, and Hell is only talked about in the New Testament. So Hell is only for Christians.

i know i don't have to take You seriously about morals.

Since this discussion is not about morality or religious beliefs, it doesn't really matter.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the law for unemployment benefits is just and equitable.

The way and the means to pay for it is the only question. Junk bonds not junk laws, could be a common law remedy.

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

 

[WinterBorn]

Equal protection under the law already exists. You just don't like that quitting your job means you stop getting paid. If you wanted a paycheck, you should have stayed on at your last job.

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

Blah blah blah More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is a State function not an employer function. Employers should only be obligated to pay a general tax, not follow our current and expensive regime that is based on the bigotry and subjectivity of the value of morals in our political-economy.

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

Blah blah blah More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.

they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the tax would have to be raised exponentially, since every person not currently employed would apply for it. And every person under employed or unhappy with their current job would quit and apply.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

Blah blah blah More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.

they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.

But it isn't more cost effective. Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective. And there will be determinations of need in both programs.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. stories are all they know how to manufacture.

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

Blah blah blah More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.

they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.

But it isn't more cost effective. Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective. And there will be determinations of need in both programs.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.

Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I posted was not a story. It was a true statement of the results of the change you want in the unemployment compensation system.

nothing but a fabricated story. you know nothing about economics, story teller.

Blah blah blah More meaningless drivel to dodge the conversation.

No rational person is going to vote to revamp the unemployment compensation system to make it a welfare system.

they will if it is more cost effective and lowers our tax burden.

But it isn't more cost effective. Having 2 programs duplicating their efforts is never cost effective. And there will be determinations of need in both programs.

Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment actually solves for that economic phenomena.

Fewer people would choose more expensive means tested welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation instead.

When you apply for unemployment, you have to provide info on your last employer, your salary, and the reason for your unemployment. And the unemployment is for a set period of time.

If you were successful and had unemployment compensation made available for anyone who would claim it, and for an unrestricted period of time, there would be the same means tests added to it.

And as for it being more expensive, do you have any evidence of that? Welfare makes you fill out some forms stating your income, assets ect. YOu may have to review them annually and state any changes. They do not necessarily verify it all. In fact, I would think they verify 10% or so. Unemployment compensation contacts every single employer and checks that you are not lying.

No, it is not cheaper. No, it is not more efficient.