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

[danielpalos]

You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason. You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it. And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford. You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities. You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. you don't understand the simplest concepts. you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

 

[Papageorgio]

Well that explains a lot.

still too chicken to get to know me and my mom? xoxo

I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.

For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.

If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker. You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.

...lousy female intuition? How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?

It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.

how did you reach that conclusion? i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees. right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan. i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.

I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?

 

[Papageorgio]

So am I. And I don't accuse you of things I can't back up.

And I am just taking you at your word. Your profile says you are 56. You tell us you live with your Mom. Surely you wouldn't post something that was not 100% true, would you?

you are simply a bigot. it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.

You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic. Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.

Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?

don't know. not everyone has the same circumstances available.

So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?

you could say that. it certainly isn't average.

but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.

All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.

 

[WinterBorn]

So do I. And if you are fired without cause, you get unemployment compensation. If you quit, you don't get unemployment compensation. YOu get the natural consequence of your actions.

Cause? Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.

No, there is no cause necessary. But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.

Only if you go to jail. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party. Equal protection of the law is necessary.

No, not only if you go to jail. If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause. If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause. If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause. If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.

Once again, no it is not. But there are consequences for it nonetheless.

 

[danielpalos]

still too chicken to get to know me and my mom? xoxo

I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.

For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.

If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker. You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.

...lousy female intuition? How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?

It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.

how did you reach that conclusion? i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees. right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan. i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.

I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?

Anyone who is, "naturally unemployed by Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States", has standing.

 

[danielpalos]

you are simply a bigot. it is not weird at all for a hispanic to live at home with their parents.

You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic. Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.

Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?

don't know. not everyone has the same circumstances available.

So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?

you could say that. it certainly isn't average.

but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.

All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.

only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

Cause? Employment is at the will of either party; no Cause necessary.

No, there is no cause necessary. But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.

Only if you go to jail. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party. Equal protection of the law is necessary.

No, not only if you go to jail. If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause. If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause. If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause. If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.

Once again, no it is not. But there are consequences for it nonetheless.

that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.

 

[WinterBorn]

You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason. You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it. And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford. You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities. You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. you don't understand the simplest concepts. you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

 

[danielpalos]

You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason. You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it. And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford. You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities. You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. you don't understand the simplest concepts. you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

 

[WinterBorn]

No, there is no cause necessary. But whether you were fired for cause does, in fact, have consequences.

Only if you go to jail. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party. Equal protection of the law is necessary.

No, not only if you go to jail. If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause. If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause. If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause. If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.

Once again, no it is not. But there are consequences for it nonetheless.

that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.

The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor. The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages. The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.


All it said was that you can be fired for cause. I did not say cause was required. But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did. It is part of the record of your misdeeds. In other words, keep your nose clean.

 

[danielpalos]

Only if you go to jail. Otherwise, employment is at the will of either party. Equal protection of the law is necessary.

No, not only if you go to jail. If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause. If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause. If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause. If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.

Once again, no it is not. But there are consequences for it nonetheless.

that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.

The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor. The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages. The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.


All it said was that you can be fired for cause. I did not say cause was required. But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did. It is part of the record of your misdeeds. In other words, keep your nose clean.

you simply understand none of the economic concepts. why do you believe that form of wage-slavery, doesn't put a downward pressure on wages to "third world or less" equilibrium?

 

[WinterBorn]

You want to rework the entire unemployment compensation system, not for any good reason. You want to rework it so that you can have an income without working, and welfare will deny you because you don't actually need it. And you want to rework the entire system, not because of some nonsense about equal protection under the law, but because you want stuff you can't afford. You have a place to live, food, heat, lights, and all the necessities. You want to screw up the system and cost the tax payers millions so you can enjoy luxuries without getting a job.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. you don't understand the simplest concepts. you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, not only if you go to jail. If you are negligent in your job, you can be fired for cause. If you fail to come to work or leave early too often, you can be fired for cause. If you willfully damage company property or engage in horseplay or violence, you can be fired for cause. If you steal from your employer, you can be fired for cause.

no cause is necessary in an at-will employment State.

Once again, no it is not. But there are consequences for it nonetheless.

that is unequal protection of the law that Favors the rich over the Poor, and distorts markets and puts a downward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

your right wing bigotry, cannot justify any part of it.

The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that favored the rich over the poor. The post you are quoting said nothing about anything that puts a downward pressure on wages. The post you are quoting said nothing about bigotry.


All it said was that you can be fired for cause. I did not say cause was required. But firing you for cause, if you deserve it, will prevent you from drawing compensation and often keep you from getting another job because of what you did. It is part of the record of your misdeeds. In other words, keep your nose clean.

you simply understand none of the economic concepts. why do you believe that form of wage-slavery, doesn't put a downward pressure on wages to "third world or less" equilibrium?

You have shown a real disdain for the working class people.

I don't believe in wage slavery. But I do believe you have to have some skills to be worth more money.

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. you don't understand the simplest concepts. you merely stereotype and make up stories.

simplification will lower costs and provide for an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.

A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."

Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are the one who is continously stating lies (stories).

Switching millions of people from welfare to unemployment is not simplifying anything. The welfare system is well streamlined. The means testing is not difficult nor is it inefficient. The applicant fills out a few pages about their income and assets. Thats it.

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.

A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."

Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.

Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.

Why didn't you?

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't think she was referring to getting to know or not getting to know your Mom.

For most women, hearing that you live with your Mom, is a big No.

If they find out you are unemployed and live with your Mom, its pretty much a deal breaker. You being a "mostly nice guy" doesn't matter.

...lousy female intuition? How Bad can i be, living at home with mom?

It tells them that you are not ambitious, have little or no money, and have priorities that do not include them.

how did you reach that conclusion? i am working on developing some sort of venture from home. i am already into container gardening and growing plants and trees. right now, i am focusing on lowering costs by placing plants in containers to provide more shade around the house and central ac fan. i water the plants to help cool the area between the plants and the house.

I thought you were working with a congressman in Florida to get paid for not working, did that fall through?

Anyone who is, "naturally unemployed by Capitalism's not socialism's Natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States", has standing.

Your argument with him, you must of lost.

 

[Papageorgio]

You could make that argument, but only if you had said you are hispanic. Barring that info, assuming you are white is simply going with the odds.

Are many 56 year old hispanic men unemployed and living at home?

don't know. not everyone has the same circumstances available.

So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?

you could say that. it certainly isn't average.

but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.

All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.

only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.

Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would people want welfare if they could apply for unemployment compensation, instead?

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.

A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."

Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.

Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.

Why didn't you?

trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?

i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.

and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?

Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.

 

[danielpalos]

don't know. not everyone has the same circumstances available.

So you are saying it takes some bad circumstances for a 56 year old hispanic man to be living with his Mom and be unemployed?

you could say that. it certainly isn't average.

but then, i also win my arguments, more than average.

All the time you have been on this board, I have never seen where you won one argument. And the arguments on this thread, you have lost them all.

only hypocrite right wingers, say whatever they want without regard to facts, historical or otherwise.

Only a moron would post that...oh wait, you are one.

only the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.

 

[WinterBorn]

First of all, for the healthcare insurance and other benefits.

Second of all, they can't get unemployent.

Third of all, if you remove all the rules you want removed, do you expect to be able to go down the the unemployment office and say "My name is Daniel Palos. My social security number is XXX-XX-XXXX. I don't have a job." and they will just send you a check???

They could purchase basic insurance on unemployment if they wanted, or pay cash on an installment basis on unemployment that bears true witness to our State at-will employment laws.

Why do you have a problem solving simple poverty at that rock bottom cost, instead of merely wasting money and whining about taxes, right wingers?

LMAO!!! Have you priced private insurance lately? When I carried my own, I was paying $1,500 a month for me and my wife. The max you will get from unemployment is about $500 a week. Good luck making that $500 last you the month.

I do not have a problem solving simple poverty. Nothing you have suggested would do that. It would, however, be wide open for abuse and fraud. Which would mean it cost more and did less.

A simple problem if i live at home with my mom. I could have learned how to invest in the stock market, by now and beat that wage "on my own."

Capitalism, What is That, Sayeth the (national socialism is all they know) right wing.

Yes, you probably could have learned to play the stock market. If you had the money to start.

Why didn't you?

trying to learn "too many markets at once" with too little capital?

i did learn a lot of new concepts, though.

and, why wouldn't someone want to pursue Happiness under our form of Capitalism, by solving for that capital phenomena and participating more in our markets?

Why do you believe unequal protection of the law at the Expense of the Poor, is anything more than simple bigotry? There are not enough morals on the right wing to go around. We already know that.

The "too little capital" is the main point.

People pursue happiness in many different ways. For some, their work is a source of happiness. For others, their income allows them to do things that make them happy.

The equal protection under the law does not favor anyone. The standard relationship is employer/employee. The employee provides labor or services, for which they are paid by the employer. If the employee quits this relationship, the employee no longer provides labor/services and the employer no longer provides income. The equal protection provides that no retribution for either side can occur and that the relationship can be ended at any time by either side.