On 2022-04-21 8:36 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:56:41 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <t3qhkq$899$3@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-21 02:45:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>>> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Filipkowski
>>>>>>> @RonFilipkowski
>>>
>>>>>>> Marge continues to rage: "They're actually putting me on the witness
>>>>>>> stand on Friday. I am the first Republican member of Congress that is
>>>>>>> going to be forced to take the witness stand under oath and defend
>>>>>>> myself .. I cannot believe I'm being forced to do this."
>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1516820275899379731
>>>
>>>>>> Perjury charges will be coming unless she takes the Fifth.
>>>
>>>>> She's in big trouble. Voters in Georgia are trying to disqualify her
>>>>> under the 14th Amendment Section 3.
>>>
>>>>> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
>>>>> elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,
>>>>> civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
>>>>> who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,
>>>>> or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
>>>>> State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
>>>>> State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall
>>>>> have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
>>>>> given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
>>>>> by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
>>>
>>>> Which is so outrageously unconstitutional that even you should be
>>>> disgusted by it, Adam.
>>>
>>>> Unless your "constitutional fidelity" is situationally dependent.
>>>
>>> Must I be disgusted just because I've pointed out something that's going
>>> on? I haven't bothered to read about the accusations against her with
>>> respect to her participation in the alleged insurrection.
>>>
>>> btw, you must have missed that I had opposed impeaching Trump, so it's
>>> pretty obvious that you remember only what you want to when you want to
>>> make a baseless accusation.
>>
>>
>> He's good at that, as I've found out recently.
>>
>> And how can it be unconstitutional when it's stated right there in the
>> Constitution? She's vulnerable to being charged. Instead of doing
>> that, though, I'd wait to see what happens to her this primary season,
>> or in November. I'd prefer that her district get the first shot at
>> resolving this.
>
> It would be great if her district would remove her but knowing the
> makeup of that district I find it unlikely that will happen. I do know
> that this time around she will get a Democratic challenger which will
> be a first. Not that I think the Dem. challenger has a shot at winning
> as that district is a solid Republican stronghold. If the makeup were
> to reflect any of the nearby districts to the south the odds would be
> much different as even Cobb/Cherokee county are becoming less of a
> Republican stronghold as more people keep pouring into the area.
>
> Lol. It's to the point where even with what seems like half the
> working population working from home traffic is still pretty bad. I
> think companies are going to have a hard time convincing people they
> need to come to the office if their job doesn't really require them to
> do so.

It seems to me that if they have been doing the job from home for two
years, this makes a pretty strong case for the idea that it *can* be
done from home in an effective manner. It behooves the executives who
insist that work must move back to the office to make a compelling case
for it, otherwise they need to act like human beings and let people work
from home if it's possible for their job (and, of course, preferred by
the employee).

--
Rhino