Why Are Progressive Men Intimidated By Conservative Women?

No proof? I'm a conservative woman. Are you?

 

There can be no proof, because this is a *subjective* topic, which means there's no "truth" in it. Only subjective opinions on what the truth may be. For my part, I consider myself a family man. I want to raise children and I want to have a mother and a wife committed to our union as a family and as a couple. Given the bias of the Family Court systems, I'd rather avoid it if at all possible.

So from a political perspective, I couldn't date a "progressive" woman, who sees a family as an option not a desire and I know that if we were to have familial disputes, she wouldn't go for the 50/50 pre-settlement.

 

Maybe you can explain why the right refuses to bear true witness to our own laws regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will, as a moral and Standard fixed by them in modern times.

 

I did that already ... Catch up fella.

 

Can you re-state your position regarding the concept and federal doctrine in American law, regarding employment at will and any Iron Age morals that may be based on purely religious notions, from that very Same age.

 

Progressive men also tend to have wandering minds...oh look, a squirrel.

 

I am only willing to vote for chics with the cutest snatch, if they are conservative.

 

Progressive men are smooth talkers too. What woman could resist such a classy guy? ROFLMAO

 

Why ... Are you applying for a job with me?
I can save you the trouble ... No chance in hell (not a compliment).

Short version:
I can fire your ass for any reason I decide to as long as I don't violate anti-discrimination laws ... And don't even have to give you the reason.
Anyone that doesn't specifically identify other conditions as terms of employment ... Automatically agrees to the previous condition when they accept the job.
It has been that way since the late 1800's ... and will probably be that way for at least a few more years.

Discussing any kind of morality (much less Iron Age Morality ... not that anyone is acting as they are above the law anyway) ... Would be a fool's errand.
If you want to play hardball ... Make sure you have a point, and bring a bigger bat.

 

It wasn't any form of sweet talk, but a statement of political intent, in modern times. I believe that metric cannot be any worse than what we have now.

 

Thank you for stating your position, as a privilege and immunity for some citizens in the several States, in modern political-economic times.

An employer has no legal liability for (lawfully) terminating an employee on an at-will basis.

Why does labor face some liability in exercising that same privilege and immunity in regard to unemployment compensation?

In my opinion and in that alternative, it merely has to do with lack of sufficient morals to bear true witness to our own laws, and do justice to our Founding Fathers' Commandments to their Posterity.

 

Well good for you ... Decent opinion ... How about you go and change the law?
Better yet ... How about you open a business ... Treat your employees fairly, and make the world a better place?

Like I said earlier ... "it doesn't have as much to with the money as the fact he doesn't have any (figure that one out)."
Tell me when you can figure out what that means ... and how it applies to your comments about "employment at will".

I will give you a hint though ... Unemployment Compensation is not employment ... Go Figure!

 

Is it too much to expect our wealtheir politicians to do a good job simply because they took an Oath to do it, simply for the sake of morals?

It may have to do with crony forms of Capitalism and the Status Quo.

Unemployment compensation does help ensure full employment of resources in the market for labor, and is a form of Promoting the general Welfare of the United States.

Does that help clarify the issue for you, or should we ask Dr. Orange for a second opinion about resorting to fallacy while diagnosing the Body politic.

 

Unemployment Compensation is not under the umbrella the employer has control over as far as employment is concerned ... Outside of the fact the employer accepts that they will have to pay unemployment taxes on the employee.

The piece you quoted from wiki explains how the employer and the employee share the same liability (or lack thereof) ... regarding employment status.
Because you want to expand the loop to consider Unemployment Compensation ... When the employer doesn't control the rules or distribution of the compensation ... Is where we disagree.

If you want unemployment compensation to be the status quo for capitalism so you can have full employment ... Well, I don't need a second opinion on that ... Unemployment is not, and never will be employment.
If you want to make the case that the Founding Fathers would support unemployment compensation to start with ... Then you may need the second opinion to move forward.

 

I am not referring to the employer at all, in my rebuttal. We already know that employers should not have any legal liability exercising their privileges and immunities under the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will, in American Law.

Why do you disagree with equality under our republican form of Government?

In any case, it is about full employment of resources not only full employment of human capital, under our form of Capitalism where it only takes money to make more money and not a work ethic or learning how to fish, in modern economic times.

Corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to civil Persons in our republic as a privilege and immunity in modern times.

 

You are the one that brought up employment at will ... if you don't want to use it in your argument, then don't bring it up.
If you have problems with how the government handles unemployment compensation ... then take it to them.

If you think that I am honestly going to be offended because you are upset that I understand how money can make money ... Then you need to realize that you are just fishing in the wrong pond.
There is no denying the fact that if someone has money to invest, they can make money doing so ... Or the fact that the more money they have, the more they can make ... DUH!

If I were you ... I wouldn't be getting as upset about the fact that you fish with nothing, for nothing ... And start figuring out the real reason why it is you have nothing to start with.

"It does not have as much to do with the money, as the fact he doesn't have any (figure that one out)" ... Go Figure!

 

Thank you for not even having an argument for your Cause.

I am not referring to the employer at all, in my rebuttal. It is not about the employer, but about employment at will.

 

Employment at will is law ... and does involve the employer.
You still don't understand my cause and probably never will understand ... It would mean taking responsibility for your own well-being.

Don't worry about it though ... You don't have a rebuttal worth a dime to anyone who takes care of themselves.
Argue with life all you want ... Or get to living it.

 

After reading this thread all I have to say is what's wrong with you people? Take a break from politics.

 

You need to resort to fewer fallacies to enable me to better confide in your sincerity.

 

Yeah Whatever ... Good Luck In Your Endeavors.
You Were Getting Boring Anyway ... Well, Not Really "Getting", and More Like "Have Been" ... Honest, Cross My Heart.

 

Thanks. But, I hope you know I don't take free chics very seriously for free, when I don't have much money.

 

Bingo. That's what I've been driving at.


Right wingers on this forum post their threads in the form of a leading question as if the title of their thread, somehow, reflects the truth. As usual, they fail to back up their claims with any proof. Why? Naturally, because their posts are nothing but lies.

 

What a silly stereotype.

 

Generally speaking, smart men aren't attracted to woman who are both stupid and mean-spirited.

Who knew?