What is our obligation to the poor?

[ding]

I understand the legal concept. I stated the legal concept. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. Your wording was flawed. I even explained why it was flawed.

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

 

[danielpalos]

with lucre, he could have simply hired an attorney to represent him.

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

To the truth. Didn't you read it?

that was the Truth; the bad boy got let off and nice guy got crucified.

 

[danielpalos]

just your understanding is flawed; do you Only have diversions and special pleading?

You merely have an inferior understanding of the language; you may need to go to a superior court for a better understanding.

Employment at the will of either party means both until it is ended, at the will of either party.

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

 

[ding]

Free enterprise can never be free because social morals for free are not free.

Capital morals require capital to circulate.

No. Don't you remember... market friendly morals and market friendly pricing. You said so.

Capitalism requires capital to circulate; only socialists may "talk for free".

That's not what you wrote earlier. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding? Socialism requires social morals for free.

that has Always been my position; you have merely, always had a lousy argument.

lol, your argument changes more than a chameleon. Maybe all you need are social morals for free to have market friendly morals and market friendly pricing.

 

[ding]

We can solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing has a problem, mustering their moral of, "goodwill toward men".

That's only because social morals for free are not free, lol.

 

[ding]

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

To the truth. Didn't you read it?

that was the Truth; the bad boy got let off and nice guy got crucified.

That was His testimony? I must have missed that. We were talking about His testimony, right? Or did we slip off into social morals for free again, lol?

 

[ding]

My understanding is fine. Employment requires consent or agreement from both parties; the employer and the employee. If my employer consented but I did not that would satisfy your condition of either, unfortunately, that would mean I would be forced to perform labor against my will. Your problem appears to be that you do not have social morals for free.

It almost sounded like you believe I need to go to re-education camp, lol. Winston? Is that you?

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at will; that assumes an employment relationship on that basis.

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

 

[Mudda]

that is not what Religion claims. you cannot "buy a stairway to Heaven".

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

dingbat, I bet that your obligation to the poor was to vote Republican.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[ding]

But you can buy a stairway to hell. Which is why the root cause of lucre is that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Religion claims that there is no such thing as social morals for free. Someone must pay for them.

with or without, lucre?

Jesus the Christ had to do it, without lucre. Just bad timing? Should He have been born in modern times with access to an EBT card.

With AND without.

His timing was perfect.

dingbat, I bet that your obligation to the poor was to vote Republican.

I'll take that as a yes.

That didn't surprise me.

 

[ding]

Now you are changing what you wrote. Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; that Is the legal concept. i did not make it up. you simply appealed to ignorance and made up a rational excuse.

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

 

[ding]

Yep, you didn't make it up. You just butchered it in your statement. Hence my comment "Did you realize your inferior understanding of the language; did you go to a superior court for a better understanding?"

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party; any more diversions?

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

you have to actually employ someone first, or it is just, right wing fantasy.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is at the will of both parties. Both parties must agree. You have gotten it now. Good job.

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

you have to actually employ someone first, or it is just, right wing fantasy.

You. I want to employ you. Get over here. Chop chop.

 

[danielpalos]

no; both parties do not need to agree; that is for-cause employment.

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

you have to actually employ someone first, or it is just, right wing fantasy.

You. I want to employ you. Get over here. Chop chop.

that requires a bonus, or it is all talk.

 

[ding]

Awesome I have cause for employment. When will you be here? I won't pay much.

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

you have to actually employ someone first, or it is just, right wing fantasy.

You. I want to employ you. Get over here. Chop chop.

that requires a bonus, or it is all talk.

It is of no concern to you as you have already conceded that there does not need to be agreement. It seems that you are waffling on this too.

 

[ding]

Why would He need to do that? He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

To the truth. Didn't you read it?

that was the Truth; the bad boy got let off and nice guy got crucified.

Yep, all according to His plan. What does that have to do with giving good testimony?

 

[danielpalos]

i don't have Cause for employment, if it does not include a bonus, regardless of whether or not we succeed.

It doesn't matter. We only need one of our wills according to you. Chop, chop or I won't spare the rod.

you have to actually employ someone first, or it is just, right wing fantasy.

You. I want to employ you. Get over here. Chop chop.

that requires a bonus, or it is all talk.

It is of no concern to you as you have already conceded that there does not need to be agreement. It seems that you are waffling on this too.

there is no agreement; only right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

dude; the nicest guy in the World, should be able insist, Only the women who are doing Him the most, Love Him, the most.

He was a little more than that. He had no need to insist. He was born into this world for that very reason.... to give good testimony. That's why He was born.

good testimony about what? the bad boy, "Barabbas" got a "get out of jail free card".

To the truth. Didn't you read it?

that was the Truth; the bad boy got let off and nice guy got crucified.

Yep, all according to His plan. What does that have to do with giving good testimony?

doesn't sound very good, to me; unless, we are in Nexus 6 with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.