So very sorry Republicans Putin gambled and lost

[martybegan]

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.

And you take your personal views and try to pretend they are all "rights" when they are clearly not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The handcuffing of the PATCO president was probably the single greatest criminal act I have ever seen.

Well, you are an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the Ukraine signed treaties forbidding joining alliances hostile to Russia,

Post them.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is because "ethical principles" ARE the single most important talisman of law.
Your choice.
You can either have underlying "ethical principles" being the justification for all legislation, or you have arbitrary edicts.
The choice is between a democratic republic, or an authoritarian dictatorship.
Either inherent rights of each individual, or might makes right.

You still don't seem to get it.
Just like slavery was supported by legislation until 1865, lots of legislation is inherently wrong and therefore illegal.
If you choose legislation as being superior to higher ethical principles, then you are just saying "might makes right" and the government is just an arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship.
It is only if you support arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship, that slavery was EVER legal.
Similarly, it is only if you support arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship, that gov unions were EVER illegal.

(But that does not mean I support all gov employee strikes. Gov unions can be dangerous due to union lobbying and candidate funding.)

If I am wrong, then Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, etc., is all wrong.
Then we should have followed British law that said taxation without representation is what the legislation says.
Then the colonists then should have shut up and obeyed.
When in the course of human events, if legislation is wrong, then we all have a legal obligation to disobey that mere legislation, and follow the higher abstract principles.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, you are an idiot.

So you agree with gov silencing someone who is warning us our lives are in danger due to bureaucratic penny pinching?

 

[martybegan]

That is because "ethical principles" ARE the single most important talisman of law.
Your choice.
You can either have underlying "ethical principles" being the justification for all legislation, or you have arbitrary edicts.
The choice is between a democratic republic, or an authoritarian dictatorship.
Either inherent rights of each individual, or might makes right.

You still don't seem to get it.
Just like slavery was supported by legislation until 1865, lots of legislation is inherently wrong and therefore illegal.
If you choose legislation as being superior to higher ethical principles, then you are just saying "might makes right" and the government is just an arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship.
It is only if you support arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship, that slavery was EVER legal.
Similarly, it is only if you support arbitrary, authoritarian, dictatorship, that gov unions were EVER illegal.

(But that does not mean I support all gov employee strikes. Gov unions can be dangerous due to union lobbying and candidate funding.)

If I am wrong, then Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, etc., is all wrong.
Then we should have followed British law that said taxation without representation is what the legislation says.
Then the colonists then should have shut up and obeyed.
When in the course of human events, if legislation is wrong, then we all have a legal obligation to disobey that mere legislation, and follow the higher abstract principles.

Talk about extrapolating a tangent of a side-stream.

As employment is merely a contract for services to an employer, any law regarding striking is just regulating that contract. In the case of government employees at the federal level, striking is illegal. Clear cut, plain and simple. No need to go into a looping multi-paragraph word-salad.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Putin's a leftist. He's one of yours. This mindless screeching that conservatives support him is just stupid.

Your use of "leftist" is absurd. Authoritarianism isn't liberal and isn't progressive; it is opposed to democracy and liberty for all of the people.

Putin is an autocrat, and an autocrat is self serving, reactionary, and someone who insists on complete obedience from others as well as imperious and vindictive.

 

[Rigby5]

Post them.

The treaties between the Ukraine and Russia are not on the Internet.
They are private and secret, but Russia has said they prohibit the Ukraine joining organizations hostile to Russia, and the Ukraine has NOT asserted to the contrary.

 

[jc456]

Putin is not a leftist. He's a Nazis-type NATIONALIST, like those that support Trump.

What’s that look like? Explain how trump is like a Nazi?

 

[Rigby5]

Talk about extrapolating a tangent of a side-stream.

As employment is merely a contract for services to an employer, any law regarding striking is just regulating that contract. In the case of government employees at the federal level, striking is illegal. Clear cut, plain and simple. No need to go into a looping multi-paragraph word-salad.

Wrong.
Striking and unions are about protection of basic individual rights.
These principles include labor laws like against child labor, trust busting, anti-monopolies, etc.
These principles are what makes Marxism unnecessary and obsolete.
It is labor laws and collective bargaining that solve the problem of economic dictatorships.
To then try to legislate against collective bargaining, is to return to the dictatorships Marx was correct to abhor.

You can't have it both ways.
Either you believe in individual rights, (which essentially is collective bargaining), or you believe in dictatorships.

 

[Rigby5]

Your use of "leftist" is absurd. Authoritarianism isn't liberal and isn't progressive; it is opposed to democracy and liberty for all of the people.

Putin is an autocrat, and an autocrat is self serving, reactionary, and someone who insists on complete obedience from others as well as imperious and vindictive.

True, but that still does not mean Putin is wrong in this case, where the US is even more autocratic, self serving, reactionary, insisting on complete obedience, imperious, and vindictive.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.
Striking and unions are about protection of basic individual rights.
These principles include labor laws like against child labor, trust busting, anti-monopolies, etc.
These principles are what makes Marxism unnecessary and obsolete.
It is labor laws and collective bargaining that solve the problem of economic dictatorships.
To then try to legislate against collective bargaining, is to return to the dictatorships Marx was correct to abhor.

You can't have it both ways.
Either you believe in individual rights, (which essentially is collective bargaining), or you believe in dictatorships.

You don't have a "right" to a job, as employment is at will.

Slaves and Serfs had "rights" to a job.

Your black/white "logic" notwithstanding, if you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to strike.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't have a "right" to a job, as employment is at will.

Slaves and Serfs had "rights" to a job.

Your black/white "logic" notwithstanding, if you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to strike.

Wrong.
The whole point of the industrial revolution taking away cottage industries, is that employment does have to have some rights, or else we fall back into feudalism.
Slaves and serfs do not have rights.
In a democratic republic that makes slavery and feudalism illegal, then all workers have to have some rights over employers.
Examples are how monopolies and trusts are illegal, how employer discrimination over race, religion, sex, and age are illegal, how dangerous work conditions are illegal, etc.
And those rights that legislation have missed, must then be covered by the general right to strike.
It is inherent and basic.

The proof of that is how public employees do routinely strike, even though in violation of legislation, and they are normally NEVER prosecuted for it. Reagan and PATCO are the ONLY single time I am aware there was prosecution.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Yes it does Americas enemy attacking a country for no reasons and you're silent???

Before the killing of civilians in the Ukraine, the Republicans in general were silent. Once the American People in mass were horrified by this outright murder the leaders in the Congress spoke out.

Yet their words are not the deeds of the Republican Party that has a broken moral compass; empathy is missing in the souls of those R's in Congress, especially those who seek to run for the Nomination to be POTUS and other lunatics like Cruz, Hawley, Graham, Lee, Cotton, Kennedy and those up to be running to keep their jobs in the H. of Representatives.

 

[Rigby5]

What’s that look like? Explain how trump is like a Nazi?

Whether or not Trump is as excessive as the Nazis, the similarity is that both Hitler and Trump represent the wealthy elite who run corporations and the military.
They want reduced wages and higher taxes for the majority, and high profits and lower taxes for themselves.

But they both claim populist ideology instead, to gain support of the majority.

 

[jc456]

Whether or not Trump is as excessive as the Nazis, the similarity is that both Hitler and Trump represent the wealthy elite who run corporations and the military.
They want reduced wages and higher taxes for the majority, and high profits and lower taxes for themselves.

But they both claim populist ideology instead, to gain support of the majority.

How you figure? What populist idea?

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.
The whole point of the industrial revolution taking away cottage industries, is that employment does have to have some rights, or else we fall back into feudalism.
Slaves and serfs do not have rights.
In a democratic republic that makes slavery and feudalism illegal, then all workers have to have some rights over employers.
Examples are how monopolies and trusts are illegal, how employer discrimination over race, religion, sex, and age are illegal, how dangerous work conditions are illegal, etc.
And those rights that legislation have missed, must then be covered by the general right to strike.
It is inherent and basic.

The proof of that is how public employees do routinely strike, even though in violation of legislation, and they are normally NEVER prosecuted for it. Reagan and PATCO are the ONLY single time I am aware there was prosecution.

That's because government unions have an unfair advantage, where the supposed adversarial "management" side usually is beholden to the unions in question. it's why we get pension issues and bullshit work rules, because both are really on the same side.

Government employees that strike should be warned, then shit-canned after ignoring the warning.

 

[Rye Catcher]

You don't have a "right" to a job, as employment is at will.

Slaves and Serfs had "rights" to a job.

Your black/white "logic" notwithstanding, if you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to strike.

Marty, you're wrong. Maybe if you had taken and passed the history of labor unions and the history of the Gilded Age you might understand reality.

Here's a simple explanation to edify your ignorance:

The Progressive Movement and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890-1920s

The Progressive Movement and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890-1920s

2001-2009.state.gov

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you're wrong. Maybe if you had taken and passed the history of labor unions and the history of the Gilded Age you might understand reality.

Here's a simple explanation to edify your ignorance:

The Progressive Movement and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890-1920s

The Progressive Movement and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1890-1920s

2001-2009.state.gov

What am I wrong about? Are you saying laws banning striking by government employees are unconstitutional?

 

[jc456]

That's because government unions have an unfair advantage, where the supposed adversarial "management" side usually is beholden to the unions in question. it's why we get pension issues and bullshit work rules, because both are really on the same side.

Government employees that strike should be warned, then shit-canned after ignoring the warning.

Exactly, unions are for themselves and not the laborers