J.C.MacSwell

It isn't. You are a government employee.

LOL. Like your myopic one-sided perspective fits in every employer/employee relationship.

Or at least tongue in cheek.

Sarcastic.

Maybe Trump simply wasn't aware he wasn't allowed to keep and store top secret information. Maybe he just saved it in case he needed it to extort someone to his advantage or for some other good purpose. It wasn't like he would use it to hurt his vision of America. Maybe he thought people just needed locked up for mishandling emails... The American people didn't make him President because they thought he was some kind of legal expert.

Inquiring minds want to know?

Have they check in Hunter Biden's briefcase?

Apparently it's complex enough for you to have yourself confused. Are you, or are you not, employed by the government?

Agree. And I didn't use it in that incorrect context.

Yes. Correctly. I correctly used target as a verb. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/target 1 : to aim an attack at someone or something The missile attacks targeted [=were aimed at] major cities. = The missiles were targeted [=aimed] at major cities. Thieves often target tourists. drugs that target cancer cells He has frequently been targeted by the media. [=he has been the target of frequent attacks by the media] 2 : to direct an action, message, etc., at someone or something The commercial is targeted [=aimed] at children. government programs that are targeted at low-income areas = government programs that target low-income areas

Who negotiates with your employer, on behalf of yourself and fellow Union members? You quoted the bold and replied:

How does your perspective consider orbits?

Public service unions...the ones that negotiate with governments...because that's the source of the money they run on... ...their cash cow... ...their bread and butter... ...or choose your term with the connotation you prefer...

Follow the money...if you can't trace what government unions get paid back to government money...I can't help you. LOL. So words matter, but you feel free to attribute words I didn't use, to ones I did. Give your head a shake Dim.

It seems Trumps team is slowly uncovering the truth for all the world to see. The US has been writing fake-laws since as early as 1917!

LOL. From the political humour thread. (too good not to be included here as well)

No. It is not.

@John Cuthber Where? You didn't take issue with Mistermack calling potential targets for Unions cash cows ready for milking? Because you quoted it directly (cherry picked from a post) and posted: Yet you seem to be very aware that Unions follow the money.

Are you suggesting that for the last 30 years in the UK, striking workers could be replaced, permanently or temporarily? If not, how does that reflect on my referring to "taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs"? For the black and white thinkers out there that think I'm entrenched in one side of this argument, just because you (by definition) must be...think again. There are good arguments for the rights of Unions...mostly due to bad arguments in favour of capitalism, which generally don't equate to free enterprise. (not saying there aren't good arguments for capitalism when it's based on the public good)

Of course. Yet you took issue with Mistermack for pointing out that Unions were very aware. i.e. cash cow Right. By taking ownership of the right to work certain jobs, to the sometimes exclusion of others. When they get there way, it's to the exclusion of others. Rarely is it fair to society as a whole. At best it's a counterbalance to Employers that have positioned themselves to "maximise commercial advantage" in the marketplace, and/or otherwise have an overwhelming advantage in the labour market...something governments generally don't enjoy. What makes this, essentially setting up a game of chicken to see who caves first, all the while to the detriment of the public, an equitable method of setting wages? No Dim. That is not exactly what I said. If I believed that, or wanted to say that, I would have.

You do realize Unions target industries and companies where they see they might have a "competitive advantage". ...and their leadership don't do it totally out of the goodness of their hearts...many get paid rather well. (though generally not as much as the top executives in the industries they target...as they don't have much interest where the money isn't flowing)

Generally speaking, the Employer/ Employee inequality doesn't exist in the same way for government employment as it does for private employment. The same arguments for the right to hold the Employer hostage can't (generally again) be made. In the worst cases Unions are able to restrict the number of entry level government service jobs below optimum, turn them into better paying careers for their members at the expense of both the public and those wishing to enter the workforce, and limit any private competition. There are of course counter arguments, but one size does not fit all with regard to fairness of right to strike, and that is especially true for many government jobs.

The latter guy would be TLG... and I'll see myself out...

I'm in for $10 on "none of the above".

kill...not know Regrettable public statement by an ambassador, even with all the civilian deaths and casualties suffered by Ukrainians, and military deaths and casualties suffered by Ukrainians, none of whom chose to be attacked in the illegal manner they have been...and even knowing the number of Russian body bags filled with naive Russian soldiers might eventually affect the wars outcome.