Vaccine or not?

[VolinWayne]

Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. That should be the new rule when it comes to anything that bossy American health officials do these days. If they tell you to mask up and then go to the French Laundry restaurant unmasked, you’re a sucker if you keep your own mask on after that.

Oops: This New CDC Job Posting for a Vaccine Injury Specialist Will Blow Your Mind - League of Power

The CDC posted a listing for a new job this week. It’s a two-year T&M (time & materials) contract to help manage the CDC’s VAERS database, which has gotten completely out of control since the COVID vaccine rollout. We’ve had 1,341,605 COVID Vaccine Adverse Events Reports since January of 2021.



Here’s the relevant paragraph from the CDC job position:

“The contractor shall implement a staffing and operations plan focusing only on vaccine adverse event (VAE) reports after COVID-19 vaccines to help process an estimated 770,000 digital reports per year. Periods of heavier and lighter reporting volume are anticipated throughout the year. Contractor is responsible for maintaining active monitoring and adjusting of the number of reports processed on an annual basis.”

The VAERS database is where doctors and nurses enter reports of adverse events for 71 vaccines. That’s the COVID vaccine and 70 other vaccines. The number of adverse events for the 70 non-COVID vaccines every year numbers in the hundreds. It never breaks 1,000 injuries for all 70 non-COVID vaccines in a year. But the CDC is admitting in this job posting that the COVID shots are causing an estimated 770,000 injuries or adverse events per year.

 

[hog88]

But you actually explicitly do want the government to mandate away an individual's choice, when it comes to potential liability for your actions in your business. Hence you have a corporation, through the form of which you entrust the government to protect you from responsibility for your own actions. You've effectively colluded with the government to mandate away the individual's right to pursue things like damages against a person responsible. All the benefits, none of the responsibility.

Like I said- turn your business into a sole proprietorship. Own it. Don't be a hypocrite, and don't hide behind the nanny state boogie man.

The individual always has a choice to follow company policies or leave, what I oppose is the .gov mandating company policies. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Since when does the government protect is a corporation liability from the government (other than pharmaceuticals)? If the .gov protects corporations from responsibility and liability why in the hell do I have to carry liability insurance?
The only person responsible for putting the vaccine into their bodies is the individual, it would be assault for any business to hold an employee down and inject them.
You sir are the hypocrite, you say you want individual freedom yet you do not want to accept the responsibility for your own decisions.

 

[ButchPlz]

The individual always has a choice to follow company policies or leave, what I oppose is the .gov mandating company policies. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Since when does the government protect is a corporation liability from the government (other than pharmaceuticals)? If the .gov protects corporations from responsibility and liability why in the hell do I have to carry liability insurance?
The only person responsible for putting the vaccine into their bodies is the individual, it would be assault for any business to hold an employee down and inject them.
You sir are the hypocrite, you say you want individual freedom yet you do not want to accept the responsibility for your own decisions.

You don't carry liability insurance.

Again, there's nothing here for me to understand. You're fine with government intervention when it suits you. You're not fine when it doesn't. It just so happens that you take the abhorrent stance that a non-person (business) has rights that rank above those of the individual. That's not an argument- it's the truth. You, personally, hide behind a shield- the corporate structure you chose- provided by the government. That's some nanny state reliance if I've ever seen it.

This is the point that's now been made to you repeatedly. You know exactly what you're doing, which is why you formed a corporation. You're just being called out on it. This is the same type of argument as those in hospitals that say they're businesses that deserve total freedom while taking loads of cash from the government.

 

[hog88]

You don't carry liability insurance.

Again, there's nothing here for me to understand. You're fine with government intervention when it suits you. You're not fine when it doesn't. It just so happens that you take the abhorrent stance that a non-person (business) has rights that rank above those of the individual. That's not an argument- it's the truth. You, personally, hide behind a shield- the corporate structure you chose- provided by the government. That's some nanny state reliance if I've ever seen it.

I don't carry liability insurance? That is news me, thanks for letting me know.

No I do not place the rights of a business above the rights of the individual, both should be free to chose the best courses of action for themselves without .gov input, force or coercion. You want the .gov to mandate what one can and cannot do while absolving the other from any responsibility and that makes you the hypocrite.

You sound like a person that thinks they are entitled to employment.

 

[VolinWayne]

37 THOUSAND INJURIES TO CHILDREN IN EUROPE AFTER COVID INJECTIONS

E.M.A (EudraVigilance)
Moderna 2,328
Pfizer 33,311
AstraZeneca 1,240
J&J 187

UNSPECIFIED AGE: 106,304
This category is important. Children’s injuries are hidden under the unspecified category

 

[ButchPlz]

I don't carry liability insurance? That is news me, thanks for letting me know.

No I do not place the rights of a business above the rights of the individual, both should be free to chose the best courses of action for themselves without .gov input, force or coercion. You want the .gov to mandate what one can and cannot do while absolving the other from any responsibility and that makes you the hypocrite.

You sound like a person that thinks they are entitled to employment.

You, personally, carry liability insurance? On behalf of your business?

I don't want the government to mandate what a business can and can't do. In fact, I think they should get rid of corporate structures, like I think they should get rid of the government institution of marriage. If you or your employees harm someone during the course your business, you, personally, should be held liable. Not the "business". As it stands now you get to freely operate without that fear.

Instead, we have a system where you, personally, get to hide behind the business as a shield. In that case, you should be subject to less freedoms because you are trading those for additional protections from society. If you get to- again, personally- hide behind the meat shield that is your business (and for which the government collaborated directly with you to establish) then you should be barred from certain actions that damage the society around you (i.e., forcing vaccines on employees; out of office requirements that have, in the past stood up in court; morality clauses; etc.). Life is a trade. You want to take and not give. That's immoral.

 

[hog88]

You, personally, carry liability insurance? On behalf of your business?

I don't want the government to mandate what a business can and can't do. In fact, I think they should get rid of corporate structures, like I think they should get rid of the government institution of marriage. If you or your employees harm someone during the course your business, you, personally, should be held liable. Not the "business". As it stands now you get to freely operate without that fear.

Instead, we have a system where you, personally, get to hide behind the business as a shield. In that case, you should be subject to less freedoms because you are trading those for additional protections from society. If you get to- again, personally- hide behind the meat shield that is your business (and for which the government collaborated directly with you to establish) then you should be barred from certain actions that damage the society around you (i.e., forcing vaccines on employees; out of office requirements that have, in the past stood up in court; morality clauses; etc.). Life is a trade. You want to take and not give. That's immoral.

Yes, I carry a personal liability policy that covers me should I get sued personally (outside of auto and homeowners). I don't know where you get the idea that individuals within (owners) a corporation cannot be or are not held personally liable for actions they take in the course of doing business, there are many examples of people being personally held accountable. If I do something criminal during the course of business you can bet your sweet ass I'll be held accountable/responsible but if one of my drivers got drunk and plowed into a school bus guess who picks up that tab?

Basically the only protection a business owner (LLC or Corp) has from the government is in bankruptcy, if your business goes under you don't lose all your 'ish and that isn't the case all the time. I don't even remember all the personal guarantees I had to sign getting started.

 

[ButchPlz]

Yes, I carry a personal liability policy that covers me should I get sued personally (outside of auto and homeowners). I don't know where you get the idea that individuals within (owners) a corporation cannot be or are not held personally liable for actions they take in the course of doing business, there are many examples of people being personally held accountable. If I do something criminal during the course of business you can bet your sweet ass I'll be held accountable/responsible but if one of my drivers got drunk and plowed into a school bus guess who picks up that tab?

Basically the only protection a business owner (LLC or Corp) has from the government is in bankruptcy, if your business goes under you don't lose all your 'ish and that isn't the case all the time. I don't even remember all the personal guarantees I had to sign getting started.

Most definitely you can be held responsible for criminal things- but that's an irrelevant situation. In general, piercing the corporate veil to pursue civil damages is highly, highly uncommon. Signing personal guarantees like you are discussing does not shift the burden of these things onto you personally. You may have some policies that state that coverage will not happen in cases of outright negligence, but again- not the same.

Regarding the second, I highly doubt it would be you, again personally, for the reasons in the exact second half of your post. Unless you are proven criminally negligent, then it's a different story.

The third is provably false. In every state in the United States there are strong requirements to allow someone to pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual owner responsible. Usually, these are also linked to criminal or otherwise egregious behavior. In forming a corporation, you colluded with the government to enable you to rely on your business as a shield from several- if not most- liabilities. That's unavoidable fact.

 

[hog88]

Most definitely you can be held responsible for criminal things- but that's an irrelevant situation. In general, piercing the corporate veil to pursue civil damages is highly, highly uncommon. Signing personal guarantees like you are discussing does not shift the burden of these things onto you personally. You may have some policies that state that coverage will not happen in cases of outright negligence, but again- not the same.

Regarding the second, I highly doubt it would be you, again personally, for the reasons in the exact second half of your post. Unless you are proven criminally negligent, then it's a different story.

The third is provably false. In every state in the United States there are strong requirements to allow someone to pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual owner responsible. Usually, these are also linked to criminal or otherwise egregious behavior. In forming a corporation, you colluded with the government to enable you to rely on your business as a shield from several- if not most- liabilities. That's unavoidable fact.

It's like talking to a child. You want nanny to take care of you and protect you from the big bad company that writes your checks.

What you want is the government to give the employee the power to dictate company policy? Where does that end? Should your employer be held liable if you are hurt in a car crash on the way to work? If you get mugged off premise eating lunch? You bump your head getting in your car leaving work? Come on, your employer required you to come to the office so aren't they liable for anything that happens to you once you leave the house?

 

[ButchPlz]

It's like talking to a child. You want nanny to take care of you and protect you from the big bad company that writes your checks.

What you want is the government to give the employee the power to dictate company policy? Where does that end? Should your employer be held liable if you are hurt in a car crash on the way to work? If you get mugged off premise eating lunch? You bump your head getting in your car leaving work? Come on, your employer required you to come to the office so aren't they liable for anything that happens to you once you leave the house?

Again, you are the one with a business leaning on the "nanny state" to protect you from the individual. Not me. And to make matters worse, you chose to operate that way so that you would be protected, personally, from individuals out in the market.

I'd prefer there be no state involvement at all, as I quite literally just told you. Then we'd be closer to an actual free market.

No sense to lob hyperbole over the wall. If we are going to keep our current mixed-market system there has to be balance. I believe in individual freedom. I believe that there is a time and a place for the government to protect individuals (seeing how I find the old company scrip model immoral, government busting that up was reasonable; same with monopoly busting and some environmental and financial protections). I don't think I believe a business should have the right to require things that reach outside of the confines of the office. Things like morality clauses are a rough area- I understand the desire not to tarnish a business but I also believe that an employers' rights should also stop at the end of the workday. Much of this is actually structured by my understanding and loads of reading into our founding fathers and the world they lived in. At the end of the day if you want the protection, you should be obligated to pay for it.

To immediately lose it like you have is...telling. As is the highly immoral stance that your right to use your business as a shield to trample on whoever else you want because "they can go somewhere else".

 

[hog88]

Again, you are the one with a business leaning on the "nanny state" to protect you from the individual. Not me. And to make matters worse, you chose to operate that way so that you would be protected, personally, from individuals out in the market.

I'd prefer there be no state involvement at all, as I quite literally just told you. Then we'd be closer to an actual free market.

No sense to lob hyperbole over the wall. If we are going to keep our current mixed-market system there has to be balance. I believe in individual freedom. I believe that there is a time and a place for the government to protect individuals (seeing how I find the old company scrip model immoral, government busting that up was reasonable; same with monopoly busting and some environmental and financial protections). I don't think I believe a business should have the right to require things that reach outside of the confines of the office. Things like morality clauses are a rough area- I understand the desire not to tarnish a business but I also believe that an employers' rights should also stop at the end of the workday. Much of this is actually structured by my understanding and loads of reading into our founding fathers and the world they lived in. At the end of the day if you want the protection, you should be obligated to pay for it.

To immediately lose it like you have is...telling. As is the highly immoral stance that your right to use your business as a shield to trample on whoever else you want because "they can go somewhere else".

Sorry if I have taken a harsh tone. I just don't suffer fools very well.

 

[ButchPlz]

Sorry if I have taken a harsh tone. I just don't suffer fools very well.

The only fool here is the one who throws the "nanny state" bomb around as an insult while he himself is directly under their wing.

 

[SlingBlayde]

37 THOUSAND INJURIES TO CHILDREN IN EUROPE AFTER COVID INJECTIONS

E.M.A (EudraVigilance)
Moderna 2,328
Pfizer 33,311
AstraZeneca 1,240
J&J 187

UNSPECIFIED AGE: 106,304
This category is important. Children’s injuries are hidden under the unspecified categoryView attachment 475289

And just think, sites like VAERS and others that are similar are most likely heavily underreported.

 

[LouderVol]

Where the hell do you rubes get that I want anyone held to a different standard? If you want to trade your labor for someone else's money do what they ask you to do or move the hell on down the road. I don't want the .gov mandating decisions out of the individuals or businesses hands.

I guess if you hired on with a company and initially it was a work from home position and they changed it to where you had to come to the office you'd want WC if you got hurt in a car wreck on your way.

That's an interesting question I havent figured out yet. Obviously if you are required to come in the office it's part of the job. So I would say it should be covered, like any business travel. But if you choose to live in BFville and have to commute 50 miles one way, everyday, that's not on the company. I would say various other considerations come into play. On the phone for a personal call, No WC. On the call with a client or in a meeting, probably WC. Leaving work to go run errands, no WC. Etc etc.

Idk maybe if there was some medium, but I have no idea how you police that either way.

 

[kiddiedoc]

And just think, sites like VAERS and others that are similar are most likely heavily underreported.

For sure they are. It's a royal PITA to complete a report.

 

[Jxn Vol]

I think we need a no dumba$$ mandate. Start with Brandon and that little elf Fauci.

 

[VolinWayne]

7-Year-Old Washington Boy Dies of Cardiac Arrest Less Than 2 Weeks After His Pfizer Vaccine

OpenVAERS Search

 

[clarksvol00]

But you actually explicitly do want the government to mandate away an individual's choice, when it comes to potential liability for your actions in your business. Hence you have a corporation, through the form of which you entrust the government to protect you from responsibility for your own actions. You've effectively colluded with the government to mandate away the individual's right to pursue things like damages against a person responsible. All the benefits, none of the responsibility.

Like I said- turn your business into a sole proprietorship. Own it. Don't be a hypocrite, and don't hide behind the nanny state boogie man.

I assume you feel people taking advantage of tax loopholes to avoid giving less of their earned income to the government are also hiding behind the nanny state boogeyman?

 

[VolinWayne]

Over 5,000 Cases of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS): Doctors Trying to Determine Why Young People Suddenly Dying | Facts Matter Over 5,000 Cases of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS): Doctors Trying to Determine Why Young People Suddenly Dying | Facts Matter

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Yeah, there is nooo responsibility in owning a business or being on the BOD of a business. There are 10s of thousands of corporations that are owned by individuals, families or small groups yet you rubes want to treat everyone of them as if they are WalMart. Even if you are just a shareholder in a major publicly traded corporation you have a right to express your wished in how that business is ran and do have money on the line.

I think you miss the point. This was a unique situation. This is the blindspot for many libertarians and many pro-business/laissez-faire types fall short. I don't think it is unreasonable to have businesses not mandate an unauthorized, untested vaccination. I know I know... slippery slope... I get it. But at this point, we are far past the point of what the relationship between govt and business should be anyways.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm not saying they should have the right to "do what they want" that's an asinine oversimplification. All I'm saying is business should have the same rights of free association in setting their employment and service policies as any individual does. If I could "do what I wanted" I wouldn't be paying taxes, insurance, I'd strip all the pollution control of my trucks and dump the waste we haul in Manhattan for free.

I think this is a unique situation that needed to be addressed with a unique solution.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

A business cannot dictate how a person lives their life, it is impossible and collusion is illegal. If there is collusion amongst different companies then the .gov that you want protecting you isn't doing it's job from the state up to the fed.

When DeSantis made some of his decisions, there were some in here that criticized him. I'll include myself in that group partially because I was aware that in the future, this might be flipped back on businesses if a Democrat gets in. But desperate times called for desperate measures.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Why? No business owner it forcing a needle into anyone's arm. People are free to leave and pursue other employment, start their own business or do whatever makes them happy. It's amazing how you faux conservatives turn to big nanny government for protection from the very people that provide your livelihoods. If you don't like your employers policies then leave.

Nothing is absolute, hog. There will be situations that come up where you have to deviate from the norm and make a special exception. If this novel virus and mandatory untested/unproven vaccinations isn't considered to be an extreme and rare case, then nothing is.

I am fully aware of the dangers of the slippery slope, if that is your major concern.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That is 100% not what I am advocating for. I am advocating for the freedom of the individual (whether that be the employee or the employer) to make the decisions that are best for them. You're a dang idiot if you believe that I am advocating for bailouts.

Hog, when these people were hired pre-COVID, was there likely any vaccination requirements for untested, unapproved vaccines in their original employment documents? I guess I'm asking why do you think it is reasonable for an employer to change the rules of the game in such a manner that threatens their job and their long term health when rolling the dice on unproven vaccines were not a part of life prior to that?

What obligation does the employer have to stick to the original agreed upon terms when they hired these people?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

People like me? I never implemented a vax mandate, I kept every employee I have employed and paid during this whole mess. When one of my drivers got sick in NM and had to be hospitalized I flew his wife out there, paid her hotel/meals for a month so she could be with him and he never missed a paycheck. Don't talk to me about responsibility until your decisions directly effect the livelihoods of 40 or more families.

Your anecdotal situation is not what is being talked about. Your situation most would agree was maybe going above and beyond. Remove yourself from this and take a 10000 ft view at what many of these companies were doing. There were some wicked practices going on with these companies playing with people's careers and their lives.