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

[danielpalos]

No. Unemployment compensation is not meant to pay people who opted out of working. It is temporary assistance for people who lost their through no fault of their own.

If you choose to quit your job, you live with the consequences of your choice. If you choose to break the law or the company rules, you live with the consequences of your choice.

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner. All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue. A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

 

[westwall]

Equal protection of the law will solve simple poverty in that market friendly manner. All we need do is change the ways and means of collecting that revenue. A general tax is better and will reduce costs for the private sector.

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection under the law is already present.

And no, it would not solve simple poverty. And no, it is not market friendly to take money from a person who earns it and produces for the market and giving it to another person who produces nothing and does not earn it. The capital will circulate in either case, so the production of the person is the deciding factor.

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[westwall]

Neither of you has the first clue what you're talking about. You're both looking at unemployment as a "choice", when in fact, it most often is not a choice.

Where I live, both employers and employees pay into an "Employment Insurance" ("EI") fund, which is used to fund periods of unemployment due to layoffs, plant closures, extended illness, maternity leave, or downsizing. All of the ways in which an employee can be unemployed which are NOT their fault. If you are fired "for cause" you cannot collect EI, but if you are fired because your boss is a capricious asshole, you can collect. If you quit to move or for other valid reasons, including your health or your boss really is a capricious asshole, you are not chained to your job., especially since health care is universally covered through OHIP.

Benefits paid = 55% of your gross income, to a maximum of $562. which equals minimum wage. You have to work for 1 full year to qualify for benefits. So yes, you can sit on your ass at home and collect the equivalent of minimum wage in Canada, provided you worked for one full year, and you lost your job through no fault of your own.

Why wouldn't I sit on my ass at home and collect $2200 per month? Because $2200 per month would barely cover our housing and utilities in downtown Toronto. And because in order to qualify for the maximum benefit, I would have had to be earning twice that amount, plus benefits. In my case, "benefits" included profit sharing bonuses, Christmas Bonus, overtime at time and a half for more than 7 hours work per day, full premium medical package with eyeglass allowances, braces for the kids, short and long term disability, all set up to align with and fill in the gaps of my husband's coverage, matching contributions to pension plans, health club membership, meals and car service if working past 9:00 p.m., one month's paid vacation. That's why!

Or I could use the EI "start your own business option", which gives you income and support for starting your own business, included unversity level business training, and a mentorship program. Or take a $5000 tuition grant for retraining, in your chosen field.

This is why Canada, Norway, and most of Europe managed to survive quite nicely with off-shoring our low end manufacturing. Because instead of hanging the working men and women in our countries out to dry, as Americans have done, while siding with the corporations and the shareholder classes 100% on these issues, Canadians and Europeans encouraged our people to go into jobs which would have higher demand in the coming economy. Instead of looking at what was lost, and trying to get it bck, we've looked at what was ahead. Where the jobs are in the current economy.

Instead of focusing on turning our good little white conservatives, our schools are focusing on the skills and tools required for 21st Century work. Twenty years ago, Canada invested in a coast to coast wireless network to bring the internet to every village and hamlet in Canada. Today, we have small Canadian business operations shipping to the world, from the comfort of anywhere in Canada. That includes artisans in Nunavit, and Labrador.

My county has embraced wind technology, which puts $60,000 per year into the bank accounts of farmers throughout the county. That's per windmill. These aren't large concentrated wind farms, just random windmills. Some big farms have a couple of them. This has stabilized our farm incomes, and helped everyone in the county.

There is so much that Trump could be doing for your economy, but instead states outbid one another for "jobs", while sticking their citizens with huge infrastructure bills for corporate construction. Corporate welfare has got to stop. The investor class is getting all the tax breaks, all of the income, and they're not even working. CEO's used to make a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.

Corporations need to pay their own workers, pay for their own infrastructure, and stop freeloading off the working and middleclass.

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

 

[danielpalos]

You miss the point. The law is employment at the will of either party. And, it must be a choice since employment is at-will. If it is not a choice, then why allege employment is at-will?

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

Women are welcome to "full body massage reparations" simply for being female.

xoxo

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no such thing as "at will" employment. I'm sure the asshole CEO who came up with the concept is chuckling into his martini, having retired on the rewards of his golden parachute. "At will" employment assumes that the employer and the employee stand on a level playing field, and that that employee is in a position to negotiate his or her own value. For a handful of people that will always be true, but not for low skill workers. Because of the displacement of low end manufacturing and retail, workers, the competition for the remaining low skill jobs is strong. And you can always apply for income supplements like food stamps and earned income credits.

I have a friend who tried to negotiate his value. He pointed out that he turned up early every morning, had his assigned work done by noon hour, and spent the rest of the day working with and helping out the new guys. He was seldom sick, and he arranged any medical appointments and off days, using vacation days. The "new guys", were just out of college, who showed up just before starting time, and didn't get into the yard until 8:15, by the time they got changed, and organized. They spent most of their days on their phones, and often didn't get their assigned jobs done until just before quitting time. When my friend asked for a raise on the grounds he was a better employee, he was told "This is what's in my budget for this job". When he asked why the news guys made more money - they had degrees and qualifications he didn't. If he doesn't like it, when there's other people out there who don't complain.

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about simplification of Government through equal protection of the law. what could be simpler.

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

 

[westwall]

 

[bodecea]

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

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

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.

American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.

Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter? INCEL based on you being so obese?

 

[Meathead]

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

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.

American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.

Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter? INCEL based on you being so obese?

No Porky. I don't live in country with a lot fat women. The ones I see are usually American tourists.

 

[danielpalos]

don't appeal to ignorance with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[danielpalos]

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

You should share your knowledge in this field, Chubby.

I have none to share. I don't know what incel means and knowing full-well that you are bit of a porker, I thought it might have to do with that.

Chubby, don't project your weight issues on others...it's so sad.

American women are almost the fattest demographic in the world. You are not alone.

Poor Chubby.....still going on about fat women in this country......as if we don't have the fattest men...........is this why you are so bitter? INCEL based on you being so obese?

women are welcome to come over to increase their metabolism, with me. xoxo

 

[WinterBorn]

Earning your own way. Working toward the general welfare means EVERYBODY works. Not just a few so that the lazy pricks can lounge around. That means YOU are supposed to contribute. Not just be a leech.

What could be simpler.

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[westwall]

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The troll won't answer. Don't feed it.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do we have Any welfare spending at all? Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.

 

[danielpalos]

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The troll won't answer. Don't feed it.

i don't need to appeal to ignorance, like the right wing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.

Yes it does. And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.

YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The power to Tax is an inherent "State's right" and Traditional power.

Yes it does. And if you think any rational politician is going to be in favor of providing money to people who quit their job, and have someone providing for their basic needs, you must be delusional.

YOu don't get paid for sitting on your ass and letting someone take care of you.

i don't need your ignorance. i can be grateful to our Founding Fathers for our federal doctrine of separation of powers.

 

[Oddball]

Like I said, it is for those who NEED it, not lazy twerps

Employment is at the will of either party. What you allege means nothing.

Your post has nothing to do with what he posted.

And yes, employment is "at-will" which means at the will of either party. You are free to quit your job. But if you choose to quit, or "opt out of working" you don't get a check. You have chosen to starve.

Show me where it says that in State law, right winger.

Employment relationships are defined by State law and a federal doctrine. Show me where your right wing fantasy is implied.

No, you show me where the law states you can confiscate private or public funds and give them to private individuals as employment compensation for a job they quit. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

The troll won't answer. Don't feed it.

He's too stupid to be a troll.