So very sorry Republicans Putin gambled and lost

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is always obviously true.
Violating a treaty is like committing a crime, and then the victims has the inherent right to pursue justice.
A treaty violation is essentially an act of war.

That is always obviously true.

You're so full of shit.

Violating a treaty is like committing a crime, and then the victims has the inherent right to pursue justice.

Russia violated the INF Treaty, that gives the US the right to invade?

A treaty violation is essentially an act of war.

You're essentially a moron.

 

[JoeB131]

Strikes by federal employees are illegal, it's part of the cost of having civil service protections.

Too bad, so sad.

Yeah, and if Reagan endangerd air passengers by playing tough guy, sucks to be them.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, and if Reagan endangerd air passengers by playing tough guy, sucks to be them.

The slots were covered, and if you can attribute an accident to the strike, by all means go ahead.

Strikes by federal employees are illegal, due to their civil service protections, and rightly so.

 

[JoeB131]

The slots were covered, and if you can attribute an accident to the strike, by all means go ahead.

Strikes by federal employees are illegal, due to their civil service protections, and rightly so.

Except they weren't striking over protections, they were striking over sub-standard working conditions.

 

[martybegan]

Except they weren't striking over protections, they were striking over sub-standard working conditions.

And were asking for massive pay increases, and to be exempted from certain civil service rules.

 

[JoeB131]

And were asking for massive pay increases, and to be exempted from certain civil service rules.

And firing them was a massive overreaction. Thankfully, Clinton gave them their jobs back.

 

[martybegan]

And firing them was a massive overreaction. Thankfully, Clinton gave them their jobs back.

They were warned, they didn't listen, they paid the price for it.

Illegal strikes are illegal.

 

[eddiew37]

Republicans rearing America down

MSNBC's Morning Joe shreds GOP 'hypocrisy' on Ukraine invasion: 'They want Joe Biden to fail -- how twisted'​

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasted Republican lawmakers for using the Ukraine crisis to score domestic political points on President Joe Biden.

Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf appeared Monday on "Morning Joe" to discuss Biden's ab-libbed comments on regime change in Russia, and he and Scarborough agreed that showing strength against Vladimir Putin was better than whatever Donald Trump displayed during his presidency.
"I think the message of the speech from beginning to end was of strength, and I also think that it was a speech that resonated not just in the context of Ukraine but in the context of a shift," Rothkopf said. "The United States and Europe and our allies are looking at Russia in terms of a long-term threat. They're not going to be satisfied simply to end this war, hopefully to win this war, but they're going to require that Russia stays where it is, that it stops its talk of aggression."
"I think, finally as to your first point about the incredible hypocrisy of the Republicans who have taken both sides of this issue, as they had so many others, that, you know, this dividing line between autocracy and democracy is not a remote foreign issue," Rothkopf added. "We are fighting that war right here, right now with people like Donald Trump and others in his party seeking to undermine American democracy and embrace hallmarks of authoritarian governments. so historical speech."
Scarborough contrasted that with some Trump allies who have been approvingly quoted by Russian media.
"Many of the Trumpists are actually having their words played on Russian television to, again, try to inspire the Russian people to keep killing more Ukrainians," Scarborough said. "It's not a good look, especially when many of the same people were the ones in the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party who celebrated Ronald Reagan's 'evil empire' speech, who celebrated Ronald Reagan joking and saying the bombing would begin in five minutes. Again, it is hypocrisy. They're not concerned about what is best for America, they're not concerned about what is best for democracy, they're not concerned about what is best for Western Civilization. They just want Joe Biden to fail or any Democrat to fail."
"You wonder how twisted somebody's worldview would be when we are in the middle of the most critical foreign policy challenge since the end of World War II," he added. "I don't know how you do it."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

he and Scarborough agreed that showing strength against Vladimir Putin was better than whatever Donald Trump displayed during his presidency.

Yeah, Biden's strength really stopped Putin from invading. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They're not concerned about what is best for America, they're not concerned about what is best for democracy, they're not concerned about what is best for Western Civilization. They just want Joe Biden to fail or any Democrat to fail."

They're pointing out that Biden has already failed.
Let's hope he doesn't fail us into nuclear war.

 

[Rigby5]

Which sent a clear signal that the government would no longer have the back of working people.



Actually, Shonkin was not an "inspector general". He was the lead prosecutor for the Ukraine, and several of his deputies were found to be corrupt, having large quantities of foreign currency and diamonds when their homes were raided.

The IMF, European Union, and the United States ALL insisted that he had to go if the Ukraine was going to get any more foreign aid. This was not about "Bursima" (which he wasn't investigating) or Joe Biden.

Frankly, this Russian invasion of the Ukraine shows why the Ukraine was quite right in wanting to join NATO and the EU.

You'd probably look at the body of battered housewife and say, "Well, she shouldn't have provoked her husband by getting a restraining order!"

Disagree.
The term "inspector general" usually applies to the top prosecutor, which was Shokin.
And that is what the translation of Shokin's title comes closest to.
Which is a role that is not supposed to be easily just fired for political reasons, like foreign entities offering money.
To fire Shokin without any charges, evidence, or trial, is the ULTIMATE in corruption.
To say he was fired because the IMF, EU, and US all insisted, it to PROVE it was totally corrupt and wrong.
The IMF, EU, and US are the MOST corrupt organizations on the whole planet.
And no domestic role should EVER be subject to foreign monetary pressure.

And YES this was about Burisma Holdings, which Joe thought Shokin was investigating, whether he was or not.
When Joe went on video demanding Shokin be fired and that US foreign aid would be withheld until then, that absolutely was crime that HAD to be prosecuted. That violated US and Ukrainian law. It violated basic principles of law and government. That obviously is criminal extortion. Anyone who does not get that, simply has no clue what law is about at all.

And no, the fact Russia did not invade until the Ukraine stole oil, acquired western weapons, violated treaties, tried to join NATO, and deliberately broke off negotiations, shows that the Ukraine did not at all have to join NATO, and was completely at fault for this conflict.

A battered wife does NOT try to put nukes on the border of the husband's bed.
A battered wife does NOT sign a treaty saying they will refrain from joining alliances hostile to the husband.
There is no similarity between an actual victim, like a battered wife, and the Ukraine, who totally and deliberately forced Moscow to retaliate.

 

[Rigby5]

Once drugs cross state lines all bets are off. And all States have drug laws as well.

Wrong.
Humans commit murder and humans cross state lines all the time.
So then should all murder charges be federal?
Of course not.

The point is there is no compelling reason why there has to be a federal DEA.
It is unnecessary, more distant from the control and value system of the local voters, and is far more expensive and corrupt, leading a more autocratic dictatorship.

We have much more chance of fixing bad state laws on drugs than we do federal.

 

[Rigby5]

It was still illegal.

There is no inherent right to strike, or at least there is no inherent right to no consequences of striking if you are a federal employee.

Striking can NEVER be illegal because it can be based on inherent ethical principles.
There are lots of potential reasons why people can have an inherent ethical right to strike.
For example, child labor, sexual coercion, dangerous conditions, religious, sexual, political, or age discrimination, etc.

These ethical principles are ABOVE mere legislation, and should themselves BE the basis for legislation.
To NOT protect these inherent principles and rights is in violation of basic concepts of law.
The whole point of society is to protect individual rights from abuse by larger, stronger, or more wealthy individuals or groups.
To NOT protect the inherent right to strike is the single most abhorrent crime any society can make.
A total abrogation of civic responsibility.

Whether or not PATCO was justified in their particular strikes in another matter.
It was a very long time ago, but I think they were.
The reason is because they were citing safety as their main goal, and later after the strike, traffic volumes were reduced, number of controllers increased, and salaries increased.
Which tends to prove they were right all along.

The handcuffing of the PATCO president was probably the single greatest criminal act I have ever seen.
It was not the most violent or caused the most harm.
But is was the most corrupt, in that it totally inverted what government is supposed to be, turning protectors into perpetrators.

 

[Rigby5]

Strikes by federal employees are illegal, it's part of the cost of having civil service protections.

Too bad, so sad.

No, strikes can NEVER be illegal, since they can be based on basic ethical principles.
What is sad is that this exposes the duality of government, in that it is supposed to be the defender, but often instead become the violator.
And when gov becomes the violator in a democracy, we are ALL guilty.

 

[martybegan]

Striking can NEVER be illegal because it can be based on inherent ethical principles.
There are lots of potential reasons why people can have an inherent ethical right to strike.
For example, child labor, sexual coercion, dangerous conditions, religious, sexual, political, or age discrimination, etc.

These ethical principles are ABOVE mere legislation, and should themselves BE the basis for legislation.
To NOT protect these inherent principles and rights is in violation of basic concepts of law.
The whole point of society is to protect individual rights from abuse by larger, stronger, or more wealthy individuals or groups.
To NOT protect the inherent right to strike is the single most abhorrent crime any society can make.
A total abrogation of civic responsibility.

Whether or not PATCO was justified in their particular strikes in another matter.
It was a very long time ago, but I think they were.
The reason is because they were citing safety as their main goal, and later after the strike, traffic volumes were reduced, number of controllers increased, and salaries increased.
Which tends to prove they were right all along.

The handcuffing of the PATCO president was probably the single greatest criminal act I have ever seen.
It was not the most violent or caused the most harm.
But is was the most corrupt, in that it totally inverted what government is supposed to be, turning protectors into perpetrators.

Federal Unions are barred from striking by federal law. There is no inherent right to strike for civil servants.

There is also no inherent protection from the consequences of striking.

 

[martybegan]

No, strikes can NEVER be illegal, since they can be based on basic ethical principles.
What is sad is that this exposes the duality of government, in that it is supposed to be the defender, but often instead become the violator.
And when gov becomes the violator in a democracy, we are ALL guilty.

Strikes by federal employees are illegal by federal law, and that law hasn't been overturned.

Being a civil servant isn't a right.

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, Biden's strength really stopped Putin from invading. LOL!

Since the Ukraine signed treaties forbidding joining alliances hostile to Russia, the US showing strength only increases the Ukraine's guilt and makes invasion even more justified and necessary.

 

[Rigby5]

Federal Unions are barred from striking by federal law. There is no inherent right to strike for civil servants.

There is also no inherent protection from the consequences of striking.

You have this totally backwards.
Inherent rights have to exist first, and then mere legislation to implement those abstractions are possible and justified.
Since there are and will always be inherent need to strike in order to ensure ethical principles, there can never LEGALLY be legislation prohibiting strikes.

Sure some immoral people may have written legislation prohibiting strikes, but no one with any ethical sense would ever act on that, since is violates basic legal principles.
For example, police, postal workers, etc. technically are not allowed to strike, and yet they do.
The postal workers have gone on strike at least 3 times in my memory. Maybe more?
Police have may more times, but they are local, so hard to quantify.
Teachers have also.
ALL government worker can and should strike, when it becomes necessary.
And those who oppose strikes when they are necessary, are a clear and present danger to any sort of democracy.

 

[Rigby5]

Strikes by federal employees are illegal by federal law, and that law hasn't been overturned.

Being a civil servant isn't a right.

Basic principles are what legislation is supposed to be based on, not the other way around.
You do NOT look to legislation to determine what is right or wrong.

When you look to legislation instead of basic principles, that is how you end up with embarrassments like the Dred Scott Decision, a blunder that will always be a reminder of how wrong those taught law can be.

Being a civil servant is not a right, but civil servants have to not only have rights, but they also are supposed to shepherd the rights of the public, if the bureaucracy is deliberately endangering them.

 

[martybegan]

You have this totally backwards.
Inherent rights have to exist first, and then mere legislation to implement those abstractions are possible and justified.
Since there are and will always be inherent need to strike in order to ensure ethical principles, there can never LEGALLY be legislation prohibiting strikes.

Sure some immoral people may have written legislation prohibiting strikes, but no one with any ethical sense would ever act on that, since is violates basic legal principles.
For example, police, postal workers, etc. technically are not allowed to strike, and yet they do.
The postal workers have gone on strike at least 3 times in my memory. Maybe more?
Police have may more times, but they are local, so hard to quantify.
Teachers have also.
ALL government worker can and should strike, when it becomes necessary.
And those who oppose strikes when they are necessary, are a clear and present danger to any sort of democracy.

you keep referencing "ethical principles" like its some sort of talisman.

The Constitution in no way prohibits government from banning strikes by it's workers.

government workers have civil service protections, and thus any strike by them is illegal, if made illegal by local laws.