The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

 

[emilynghiem]

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.

Of course, Lakhota,
nobody can abuse a law or right to violate another law or right under the same law.

So the right to bear arms comes with responsibility to exercise that WITHIN
the bounds of Constitutional law enforcement, due process and defense.

The first Amendment includes free exercise of religion,
right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.

So other rights, such as free speech or right to bear arms or
free exercise of religion itself, cannot be "taken out of context"
and ABUSED where it violates the rights of others to peace and
security in our persons houses and effects, including due process BEFORE depriving anyone of liberty.

If we respected each other's rights to begin with,
maybe we wouldn't fight so hard to try to CONTROL or change laws
"because of FEAR that other people are ABUSING those rights or freedoms."

We'd just focus on ENFORCING the laws WE ALREADY HAVE
to prevent abuses INSTEAD OF TRYING TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.

 

[emilynghiem]

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

Dear danielpalos
I think you have the right idea.

We do need to petition parties to STOP "discrimination by creed" by
unequal enforcement of "equal protection of the laws"

Examples:
1. unequal enforcement when it comes to protecting beliefs
either for or against gay marriage, or beliefs about homosexuality
which is not yet scientifically proven to be either "genetically determined"
or a "choice of behavior" but remains FAITH BASED on BOTH SIDES.
So neither side can claim unequal protection through govt, which should remain NEUTRAL
since both sides are equally FAITH BASED and not proven by science.
same with Transgender and other LGBT issues beliefs or policies that rely on FAITH BASED assertions.
Govt should remain NEUTRAL
and treat expressions and beliefs regarding homosexuality/transgender orientation
the SAME as Muslim, Christian or other Spiritual beliefs for which NOBODY should
be harassed, abused, punished or pressured to change because of govt policies or penalties.

2. beliefs about
right to life
being treated unequally as beliefs about
right to health care
Either implement both, ban both from govt, or allow a separation of taxes
so taxpayers can choose to fund either policy based on their beliefs and free choice.

But punishing and banning one while incorporating
the other as mandatory and subject to fines if people don't comply,
even if doing so would violate their Constitutional beliefs that govt is not
authorized to regulate health care decisions and finances of taxpayers in these matters,
is "discriminating by creed"

3. so why not call out the Democratic party for pushing
political beliefs through govt that other people can't be forced
to comply with but have equal right to their own political beliefs
which should be 'equally protected under law" from "discrimination by creed"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.

 

[hadit]

Get a job, hippie.

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.

The law is, employment at will. that means, employment at the will of either party. there can be no attainder to that legal concept.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer, equal protection of the law.

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

 

[hadit]

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

 

[danielpalos]

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

 

[hadit]

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

 

[danielpalos]

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

 

[hadit]

We've been over this. Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation. All is equal under the law. You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work. You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at will.

any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

 

[Thinker101]

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

Says the person that resorts to left wing propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Rustic]

Of course, equality under that law. That's not what you want, though. You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL

 

[danielpalos]

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

Says the person that resorts to left wing propaganda and rhetoric.

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

 

[Rustic]

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

Robin Hood was a crook

 

[Thinker101]

You don't have to earn a wage. There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans. They don't mean anything and don't advance your point. In short, they backfire on you.

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers? How charitable.

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all. It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric. our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.

Obama was a crook, Hillary was a crook...and both probably still are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?

Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?

By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.

The law is, employment at will. that means, employment at the will of either party. there can be no attainder to that legal concept.

The law is, employment at will.

Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.