How soon Trumpets forget or choose to ignore...[youtube]/sl_gO3uOds8[/youtube]
Printable View
How soon Trumpets forget or choose to ignore...[youtube]/sl_gO3uOds8[/youtube]
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647088113]This is a simple workplace safety rule requiring businesses with over 100 employees to require vaccination or weekly testing. That’s it.[/quote]
No, it's not it. The mortality rate for people of working age, that is under 65 is negligible. Vaccinated people can still catch and spread covid. There's not a single rational justification for the mandate other than power grab.
[quote]You don’t have a constitutional right to be employed at a particular business without complying with workplace safety rules & company policy.
The executive branch has had the power (granted to it by the legislative branch) to regulate workplace health and safety since 1970.[/quote]
Most people would be fine with businesses making their own decisions... if they were their own decisions. But they aren't, they are imposed by the government. If the government didn't impose it, people would be perfectly capable of leaving the job that has a mandate to go to a job that doesn't. Your argument reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his time under Mussolini: without the card of the Fascist Party nobody you couldn't get a job. Until 2 years ago nobody in their right mind would have said that was ever something we'd want to have in America. Now here you are. Makes you think what kind of abominations they have been able to brainwash you into accepting.
[quote]People still seem oblivious to just how much power the executive branch has been given by the legislative branch over the last century. [/quote]
Or maybe people understand it very well and would like that to change.
[quote]And once the executive branch has a particular power granted to it by legislative action, good luck unwinding that.[/QUOTE]
Well people like you who just acquiesce to this crap aren't exactly helping.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647069023]Well your wife is clearly awesome (and you too). It's not easy to take the ones that haven't been treated well or have issues into your home and to help them.
Four dogs plus cats. Consider me impressed! It seems like there'd almost have to be a few combinations that simply wouldn't work in that mix.
I was told there are very few pets at the shelters that are not being adopted right now. If that's true, I'll consider it one of the few good things that came out of this pandemic.[/QUOTE]
Some dogs are so messed up from their past. It's really tough work. After our last tough case I have told my wife no more dogs that nobody else will take. We've done our good deeds for a lifetime. Not to turn anyone off from rescuing though, 90% of dogs as shelters and rescues that need a home are great dogs with little work.
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647088113]This is a simple workplace safety rule requiring businesses with over 100 employees to require vaccination or weekly testing. That’s it.
Don’t want the vax? Don’t get it. Either your employer will allow weekly testing as an alternative, or fire you if they don’t feel like doing so.
You don’t have a constitutional right to be employed at a particular business without complying with workplace safety rules & company policy.
The executive branch has had the power (granted to it by the legislative branch) to regulate workplace health and safety since 1970.
People still seem oblivious to just how much power the executive branch has been given by the legislative branch over the last century.
To wit, the General Duty Clause gives the executive branch broad latitude, and Biden is easily within scope here:
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)1: Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees."
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(a)2: Each employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this act.
29 U.S.C. § 654, 5(b): Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
POTUS has had this authority for over half a century. And once the executive branch has a particular power granted to it by legislative action, good luck unwinding that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sy2502;1647099653]No, it's not it. The mortality rate for people of working age, that is under 65 is negligible. Vaccinated people can still catch and spread covid. There's not a single rational justification for the mandate other than power grab.
Most people would be fine with businesses making their own decisions... if they were their own decisions. But they aren't, they are imposed by the government. If the government didn't impose it, people would be perfectly capable of leaving the job that has a mandate to go to a job that doesn't. Your argument reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his time under Mussolini: without the card of the Fascist Party nobody you couldn't get a job. Until 2 years ago nobody in their right mind would have said that was ever something we'd want to have in America. Now here you are. Makes you think what kind of abominations they have been able to brainwash you into accepting.
Or maybe people understand it very well and would like that to change.
Well people like you who just acquiesce to this crap aren't exactly helping.[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem I see is a lack of real data that Covid is spread less in fully vaxxed groups than unvaxxed groups. If they made a mandate decision based upon strong data like that, it would be a whole different story, but as far as I know good data surrounding that in any fashion doesn't exist, which completely blows my mind.
Finally Moderna released some data
"There were 88 identified breakthrough cases out of 11,431 people vaccinated between December and March, the company said in a release,
compared with 162 breakthrough cases out of 14,746 trial participants vaccinated in July through October of last year."
[img]https://i.imgur.com/bJH5cto.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=sy2502;1647099653]No, it's not it. The mortality rate for people of working age, that is under 65 is negligible. Vaccinated people can still catch and spread covid. There's not a single rational justification for the mandate other than power grab.[/quote]
The government has the ability to enforce workforce safety guidelines through OSHA. This falls under that. I was making no statement either way on efficacy the vaccine.
[quote]Most people would be fine with businesses making their own decisions... if they were their own decisions. But they aren't, they are imposed by the government. If the government didn't impose it, people would be perfectly capable of leaving the job that has a mandate to go to a job that doesn't. Your argument reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his time under Mussolini: without the card of the Fascist Party nobody you couldn't get a job. Until 2 years ago nobody in their right mind would have said that was ever something we'd want to have in America. Now here you are. Makes you think what kind of abominations they have been able to brainwash you into accepting.[/quote]
Again, not really my argument, at this point it’s the law, but sure this will end up in court and by the time a court rules on this, most businesses will have used the opportunity to enforce it and would most likely adopt it as their own should it get struck down on a regulatory issue. So gov passes mandate, businesses co-opt and enforce it, court perhaps neuters it, and then businesses adopt mandate as their own. I don’t believe that is how a court would rule on this, but perhaps this strategy was baked in when debating it.
[quote]Or maybe people understand it very well and would like that to change.[/quote]
I would be like it to change. The ineptitude of state governments and Congress led to the president gaining more and more power over time which was my point.
[quote]Well people like you who just acquiesce to this crap aren't exactly helping.[/QUOTE]
Yes. People like me. We are the problem.
Doctors warn Americans NOT to gargle iodine to prevent Covid after anti-vaxxers falsely claim on social media that it protects against the virus
Betadine, an iodine-based antiseptic, has been falsely deemed a potential COVID-19 prophylactic.
Lord.....
[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1647149043]Doctors warn Americans NOT to gargle iodine to prevent Covid after anti-vaxxers falsely claim on social media that it protects against the virus
Betadine, an iodine-based antiseptic, has been falsely deemed a potential COVID-19 prophylactic.
Lord.....[/QUOTE]It takes all kinds to make a world and that includes some God awful stupid people.
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1647069023]...
Four dogs plus cats. Consider me impressed! It seems like there'd almost have to be a few combinations that simply wouldn't work in that mix...[/QUOTE]
I lived in a big house deep in the country. :) I'm impressed that you're married to what you call a shrink. That word implies a few fields. What's hers?
[QUOTE=mgftp;1647100513]Some dogs are so messed up from their past. It's really tough work. After our last tough case I have told my wife no more dogs that nobody else will take. We've done our good deeds for a lifetime...[/QUOTE]
Sorry pal, but there's no [b]OFF[/b] button. The longer you live, the more you care, unless you let alcohol destroy the quality.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/OjSspGu.jpg?1[/img]
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1647151343][img]https://i.imgur.com/OjSspGu.jpg?1[/img][/QUOTE]
Although the vaccine breaks through the blood brain barrier via injection, I don't think absorbing it through the gut is possible.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1647100513]
The biggest problem I see is a lack of real data that Covid is spread less in fully vaxxed groups than unvaxxed groups. [/QUOTE]
So what? Since when does the government or your employer have anything to say about whether you'll spend a couple of days in bed with the sniffles or not? Does your employer also mandate you wear a rubber when you have sex so you don't catch the crabs? I don't know what happened that all of the sudden people think your employer can stick its nose in your own health. We went from not being able to ask people if they were HIV positive or had hepatitis to your employer mandating you get a jab in case you catch some sniffles? How did they convince people in just 1 year that things that would have been repulsive before are perfectly acceptable now?
[QUOTE=_zman;1647151733]Although the vaccine breaks through the blood brain barrier via injection, I don't think absorbing it through the gut is possible.[/QUOTE]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/55D3SF4.jpg?1[/img]
So yesterday in the MISC sub forum myself and mgftp were called "paid shills" for disagreeing with some of the wild statements made there; so i had to "ether, own, dunk on, and embarrass" the dude that made the claim.
A passionate opinion = paid shill.
good times....
[QUOTE=supramax;1647150273]Sorry pal, but there's no [b]OFF[/b] button. The longer you live, the more you care, unless you let alcohol destroy the quality.[/QUOTE]
She is on board. As two career oriented people we really aren't equipped to take the toughest of tough cases that demand significant hours each day.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1647152753]So what? Since when does the government or your employer have anything to say about whether you'll spend a couple of days in bed with the sniffles or not? Does your employer also mandate you wear a rubber when you have sex so you don't catch the crabs? I don't know what happened that all of the sudden people think your employer can stick its nose in your own health. We went from not being able to ask people if they were HIV positive or had hepatitis to your employer mandating you get a jab in case you catch some sniffles? How did they convince people in just 1 year that things that would have been repulsive before are perfectly acceptable now?[/QUOTE]
Not for personal safety although employers do require things like hardhats, but that's a seperate discussion and I think for this topic if that strong data did exist, the mandates would be for the safety of other employees, contractors, vendors, and customers
[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1647155673]So yesterday in the MISC sub forum myself and mgftp were called "paid shills" for disagreeing with some of the wild statements made there; so i had to "ether, own, dunk on, and embarrass" the dude that made the claim.
A passionate opinion = paid shill.
good times....[/QUOTE]
Big pharma has been cutting me big checks to post on a dying sub forum of a website. Which makes as much sense that the vaccines are a worldwide conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=_zman;1647151733]Although the vaccine breaks through the blood brain barrier via injection, I don't think absorbing it through the gut is possible.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what?
Vaccines through the skull?
That's scary!
Mine were just in the deltoid.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1647152753]So what? Since when does the government or your employer have anything to say about whether you'll spend a couple of days in bed with the sniffles or not? Does your employer also mandate you wear a rubber when you have sex so you don't catch the crabs? I don't know what happened that all of the sudden people think your employer can stick its nose in your own health. We went from not being able to ask people if they were HIV positive or had hepatitis to your employer mandating you get a jab in case you catch some sniffles? How did they convince people in just 1 year that things that would have been repulsive before are perfectly acceptable now?[/QUOTE]
So much this ^^.
I say again, over. This is NEVER about the jab and rona. This is about curtailing Liberties and encroachment of what's left of our freedoms.
Joe: You are safe if you are jabbed.
Also Joe: You are NOT safe from the unjabbed.
Gubmint is notorious for taking a mile when Humanity gives an inch.
We are being conditioned to blindly follow the mandates of the state. Next thing they will tell us to shove bananas up our sphincter, and those who choose NOT to have a banana in their buttholes will be turned into an outcast.
I'd rather be free without a banana in my butthole. The rest of the nuthugging gubmint sheep can walk around with a banana in their bungholios.
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1647162473]So much this ^^.
I say again, over. This is NEVER about the jab and rona. This is about curtailing Liberties and encroachment of what's left of our freedoms.
Joe: You are safe if you are jabbed.
Also Joe: You are NOT safe from the unjabbed.
Gubmint is notorious for taking a mile when Humanity gives an inch.
We are being conditioned to blindly follow the mandates of the state. Next thing they will tell us to shove bananas up our sphincter, and those who choose NOT to have a banana in their buttholes will be turned into an outcast.
I'd rather be free without a banana in my butthole. The rest of the nuthugging gubmint sheep can walk around with a banana in their bungholios.[/QUOTE]
I think I'm starting to believe this is a low-key political move. Democrat = safety vs Republican = freedom. People are saying this isn't political, yet it clearly is.
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1647162473]So much this ^^.
I say again, over. This is NEVER about the jab and rona. This is about curtailing Liberties and encroachment of what's left of our freedoms.
Joe: You are safe if you are jabbed.
Also Joe: You are NOT safe from the unjabbed.
Gubmint is notorious for taking a mile when Humanity gives an inch.
We are being conditioned to blindly follow the mandates of the state. Next thing they will tell us to shove bananas up our sphincter, and those who choose NOT to have a banana in their buttholes will be turned into an outcast.
I'd rather be free without a banana in my butthole. The rest of the nuthugging gubmint sheep can walk around with a banana in their bungholios.[/QUOTE]
While I agree vaccine mandates are proving to people that government will overstep its bounds if left unchecked but they aren't new or constitution-breaking and the apocalyptic tyranny bit is a tad much.
Likewise, people refusing getting vaccinated and filling up hospitals is proving that leaving people to their own device and not implementing mandates may be a bit inadequate. To be clear, I am not in favor of government-mandated vaccines but I suppose that’s my problem with my libertarianism. There's theory and reality. They don’t often intersect, and if they do, it doesn't last long.
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1647162473]...I'd rather be free without a banana in my butthole. The rest of the nuthugging gubmint sheep can walk around with a banana in their bungholios.[/QUOTE] I think bananas would be stretching the matter too far
[img]https://i.imgur.com/IuZl6W8.jpg?1[/img]
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647166963]To be clear, I am not in favor of government-mandated vaccines but I suppose that’s my problem with my libertarianism. There's theory and reality. They don’t often intersect, and if they do, it doesn't last long.[/QUOTE]
I love this ^ and will rep when able.
Italy will require all workers to have a valid COVID passport, as the government led by Prime Minister Mario Draghi moves to set the toughest vaccination requirements in Europe.
A cabinet meeting Thursday approved the measure, which applies to all public and private-sector workers and will come into force Oct. 15. Workers faces fines of as much as 1,500 euros ($1,763) for noncompliance, while employers who fail to check their workers may have to pay as much as 1,000 euros.
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647166963]While I agree vaccine mandates are proving to people that government will overstep its bounds if left unchecked but they aren't new or constitution-breaking and the apocalyptic tyranny bit is a tad much.
Likewise, people refusing getting vaccinated and filling up hospitals is proving that leaving people to their own device and not implementing mandates may be a bit inadequate. To be clear, I am not in favor of government-mandated vaccines but I suppose that’s my problem with my libertarianism. There's theory and reality. They don’t often intersect, and if they do, it doesn't last long.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of theory and reality.
Do you want to encourage more people to take the jab?
Here are real solutions:
a. Don't force the jab. Good ideas require no force. You should know this as Libertarian.
b. Allow all scientists to present their findings, especially third-party scientists. No more banning.
c. Make big pharma liable for jab injuries.
Boom. I guarantee more freedom-loving unjabbed doods would voluntarily take the jab.
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1647218703]
a. Don't force the jab. Good ideas require no force. You should know this as Libertarian. [/quote]
As I said I am against government mandates as there is certainly no libertarian argument in favor of vaccine mandates, I also don't think there is a libertarian solution to pandemics either.
[quote]b. Allow all scientists to present their findings, especially third-party scientists. No more banning.[/quote]
I don’t know how we tell private companies who they allow and don’t allow on their platforms.
[quote]c. Make big pharma liable for jab injuries. [/quote]
The government has assumed the liability for vaccines since the 80’s through NVICP.
[quote]Boom. I guarantee more freedom-loving unjabbed doods would voluntarily take the jab.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I doubt anything would change as this is as much about the divisive atmosphere behind the vaccine as it is the vaccine itself. If we were in a different social and political climate, then the vaccination would not be nearly the issue it is today.
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647226423]I don’t know how we tell private companies who they allow and don’t allow on their platforms.[/QUOTE]
Easy. Social media companies enjoy immunity from prosecution to host content in order to foster free exchange of ideas. If they curate (ban) content, they become publishers. Liability should then attach. In the US, this protection comes under section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Remove their protection if they continue down this path.
[QUOTE=TolerantLactose;1647228883]Easy. Social media companies enjoy immunity from prosecution to host content in order to foster free exchange of ideas. If they curate (ban) content, they become publishers. Liability should then attach. In the US, this protection comes under section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Remove their protection if they continue down this path.[/QUOTE]
230 is the only thing that's keeping big social media companies tolerating the constant conspiracies and any alternative platforms like Parler will be sued out of existence given it's 50% doxxing and death threats.
It doesn’t change how they can curate our posts as a user. Removal of the protections of 230 would actually result in more curation and editing, and far less free interaction.
Let’s say that how ******** currently curates content on their site meets the legal definition of acting as a publisher. In this scenario, yes - they would lose the liability protections of 230. They’re now liable for 3rd party content - and thus liable for defamation, slander, etc.
But a publisher under the law still has the right to choose what they publish. Websites, forums, newspaper, book publishers, etc can choose not to publish, even if the content is not illegal.
Section 230 does not really matter in a websites post removal. Section 230 doesn’t stop you as a user from being restricted in what you can and can’t say. If only affects the website’s liability.
Becoming a “publisher” means that ******** would be even more inclined to decide what was and wasn’t shared, posted, or commented to avoid legal issues. Even with talks of social media being a “town square” and all that, as of right now, they have every right to remove posts as private companies. 230 just changes what they can be sued for.
[QUOTE=7Seconds;1647231063]230 is the only thing that's keeping big social media companies tolerating the constant conspiracies and any alternative platforms like Parler will be sued out of existence given it's 50% doxxing and death threats.
It doesn’t change how they can curate our posts as a user. Removal of the protections of 230 would actually result in more curation and editing, and far less free interaction.
Let’s say that how ******** currently curates content on their site meets the legal definition of acting as a publisher. In this scenario, yes - they would lose the liability protections of 230. They’re now liable for 3rd party content - and thus liable for defamation, slander, etc.
But a publisher under the law still has the right to choose what they publish. Websites, forums, newspaper, book publishers, etc can choose not to publish, even if the content is not illegal.
Section 230 does not really matter in a websites post removal. Section 230 doesn’t stop you as a user from being restricted in what you can and can’t say. If only affects the website’s liability.
Becoming a “publisher” means that ******** would be even more inclined to decide what was and wasn’t shared, posted, or commented to avoid legal issues. Even with talks of social media being a “town square” and all that, as of right now, they have every right to remove posts as private companies. 230 just changes what they can be sued for.[/QUOTE]
Yes, removing 230 would lead to more banning of content. It would make them irrelevant and they know it.
[QUOTE=TolerantLactose;1647236873]Yes, removing 230 would lead to more banning of content. It would make them irrelevant and they know it.[/QUOTE]
It would make any site driven by user content irrelevant. If you were the government and wanted to kneecap a major corporate sector that by and large opposes you, while eliminating a huge organization tool of the masses, this would be how you do it.