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

[danielpalos]

says the story teller who has no arguments, only stories.

Just because you choose to ignore my arguments does not make them invalid. I have made perfectly good arguments, and you simply stomp your feet like a child and keep repeating the same bullshit.

lol. dear, you only have stories about good arguments.

YOu are such a tiresome little liar.

Tell us why you deserve to make a living doing nothing, and being paid from money taken from people who earn it?

And how old are you?

you are worse, story teller. have you no shame.

Correction, I have nothing to be ashamed of here.

i have even less.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not trolling. I have asked you numerous times to tell me what is not equal, but you just spew the same nonsense.

So what is unequal about the current at-will system?

the law is employment at the will of either party. what one party can do, the other party can do equally.

And that happens. The employer can fire the employee at any time. The employee can quit at any time. That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

the law is employment at the will of either party. what one party can do, the other party can do equally.

And that happens. The employer can fire the employee at any time. The employee can quit at any time. That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

And that happens. The employer can fire the employee at any time. The employee can quit at any time. That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

 

[Marion Morrison]

And that happens. The employer can fire the employee at any time. The employee can quit at any time. That does not mean the unemployment compensation is the same if you are fired for no reason or fired for cause or you quit.

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

 

[danielpalos]

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would it be any different in any at-will employment State with equal protection of the law?

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

 

[WinterBorn]

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

 

[WinterBorn]

It wouldn't.

You know, if you put as much effort into developing a marketable skill or working a job as you do trying to get laid, give a massage, or get paid for nothing, you might have a successful career.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

 

[danielpalos]

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument. I rest my case.

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?

 

[WinterBorn]

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Oh I believe in capitalism. But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.

What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nothing would be any different. That does not mean you get paid for doing nothing.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?

Believe? When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact. More money in means more money multiplied.

 

[danielpalos]

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Oh I believe in capitalism. But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.

What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

 

[danielpalos]

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?

Believe? When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact. More money in means more money multiplied.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Circulating less capital makes for less multiplier effect.

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Oh I believe in capitalism. But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.

What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.

Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.

 

[WinterBorn]

You gotta make you some capital first, you lazy piece of shit!

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?

Believe? When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact. More money in means more money multiplied.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

I didn't say it was nothing. In fact, when you made that exact same statement before, I explained what I meant.

There is a cost for the gov't taking the money and redistributing it. That cost is born by the people. So if you take $100 from the tax payers (those who earned it) then the people who didn't earn it will only get around $75. That is LESS. Less money into the market means a lower return from the multiplier effect.


So are you going to tell us how ambitious you are?

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, I know I have asked you this numerous times. But you have never answered it.

You don't want to work. It is not as if you are incapable of working. You just don't want to.

Why do you think that tax money, taken from those who earned it, should be used to pay you so that you can have the luxuries you want?

What makes you so special?

 

[danielpalos]

lol. that is the problem we have now and one reason why we have homeless now, with Your plan.

No, it is not. Although, if you had your way, we would have fewer homeless people. Give them $2k a month, in cash, and no help for their substance abuse and mental health issues, and a large number of them would die (including those killed for the money they keep on them).

don't believe in Capitalism, right winger?

People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Oh I believe in capitalism. But I also know what people with substance abuse will do to feed their habit.

What I find amusing is your claim "People are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism".
You, obviously, are not are willing to be ambitious and proactive and ensure promptness under Capitalism.

Why do you believe better health care service at potentially lower cost won't be more available with greater potential for greater market participation by more people?

Because I have not seen any sign that more participation reduces healthcare costs.

Also, unless the healthcare is in place when you offer aid to the homeless, the addicts will spend their money on drugs & alcohol.

more potential consumers must have some effect on producers who will rationally seek to increase participation in their markets.

 

[danielpalos]

not under capitalism. we merely need to circulate it.

To circulate the maximum amount of capital and to see the greatest multiplier effect, people have to keep more of the money they earn and more people have to work.

don't believe in the law of large numbers, either, right wingers?

what do y'all, really really believe in?

Believe? When talking about the multiplier effect it is a fact. More money in means more money multiplied.

Circulating capital to engender a positive multiplier effect is not, nothing.

I didn't say it was nothing. In fact, when you made that exact same statement before, I explained what I meant.

There is a cost for the gov't taking the money and redistributing it. That cost is born by the people. So if you take $100 from the tax payers (those who earned it) then the people who didn't earn it will only get around $75. That is LESS. Less money into the market means a lower return from the multiplier effect.


So are you going to tell us how ambitious you are?

so what. with Your plan, most money will go to the Richest who will try to find a haven for it.