Because the cost of setting up a mirror production line with all that equipment is so cheap.
- Thread starter D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷
- Start date
So do it on different shifts... squirt some hand sanitizer around in between. Day shift makes things for gummint. Night shift for Americans.
Everyone going "I can't" is making excuses and trying to force compliance. This is not about a made-up pandemic. It's about forcing compliance.
The components market has been behind the curve now for years. Time to expand... Not force employees out. "I Can't" really means... "I won't." Which is fine when it comes to personal freedom. NOT when it comes to forcing employees into medical experiments.
Sirhr
PS... I have no issue with Hornady 'pleading with employees' all they want. Plead away! Spend your management time writing pleading letters instead of doing your fu*&^ng jobs selling Ammo and Components to hungry markets... Plead away. Spend all your time pissing off the people who make you your $$ on the line. Beg like hungry dogs. But DON'T force anything on people you don't own.
PPS... Just a hypothetical question... What would be the reaction if Hornady said "We are mandating AIDS tests, nicotine tests and cancer probability tests for every employee and prospect. PLUS, pregnancies cost us a lot of money with maternity leave and baby care... "You broads take all kinds off with sick kids, etc. That costs us money." So if you are going to work here, you are mandated to not get pregnant and must submit a negative pregnancy test result to us on the first of each month as a condition of employment. That ok??? Or how about... "This Company does not allow its employees to murder children by having abortions.... " How would that go over? Is that ok? Just wondering... My bet is that the lawyers would be lined up 10 deep... But scream "Fake Pandemic" and it's game on.
Last edited:
Much like distilleries who do contract work or have multiple brands. When they are making product for brand XYZ that shingle gets hung up outside the office and they are legally operating as whatever company that is. I'm grossly oversimplifying things, but is the gist of it.
I wonder about the future of this country when you lose bodily autonomy as well as the mental health and patriotism of those that don't mind.
When Jim Beam lost their distillery in a fire, the other distilleries stepped up and made product for them.
The hill I will die on, is defending the United States Constitution.
BTW: Court injunction halts mandate based unconstitutionality.
Last edited:
It hasn’t hurt many who haven’t taken it it, but it’s hurt millions who have.
Not only is there zero credible evidence to support your claim, do you realize that is the same logic used by gun grabbers every time someone is unintentionally injured by a gun? Or is the idea of the truth and reason so lost on you that evaluating the truth no longer matters?
Me too. I have zero doubt that my position will be vindicated as well.
Zero credible evidence? Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
Last edited:
BTW: Court injunction halts mandate based unconstitutionality.
Unfortunately this appears to be just another legal world bus stop on the long road to the s.c. I really hope this vacs mandate insanity will be stopped dead in its tracks, incinerated, and buried in salted earth...................but then again, we are talking about a corrupt legal system.
Unfortunately this appears to be just another legal world bus stop on the long road to the s.c. I really hope this vacs mandate insanity will be stopped dead in its tracks, incinerated, and buried in salted earth...................but then again, we are talking about a corrupt legal system.
Coney Barret appears to be all in govt telling one what to do with their bodies.......
Yeah.............What a surprise with her. We were all told for years what a great conservative justice she was. Looks like the typical sell-out that we have all had buyer's remorse about.
It's why I really have questions and doubts about Trump. Gorsuck, now this bitch. As I've said for a long time, Trump has been the worst personnel manager that I've ever seen. Those that he has surrounded himself with in the cabinet, and the abc bureaucratic offices have been pretty pitiful..
It's why I really have questions and doubts about Trump. Gorsuck, now this bitch. As I've said for a long time, Trump has been the worst personnel manager that I've ever seen. Those that he has surrounded himself with in the cabinet, and the abc bureaucratic offices have been pretty pitiful..
If you thought conservatism was an ideology about constraining the government's power, I simply suggest that you read some history. Limited government, as an idea, is a liberal concept. Conservatism always was about 1) constraining the rate of change in policy and 2) preserving the status quo or restoring the status quo ante, and 3) enforcing a concept of social order.
If it does, it'll be the first time in the history of our system of law that has ever happened. Plenty have thought as you do, and most all (if not all) have failed, especially at the Supreme Court. If the 1905 case isn't convincing, just read Buck v. Bell.
The GM of my employer issued an email stating that even though Biden delayed the mandate for contractors (we are a fed contractor), he is holding the Dec 8 date as planned.
Not real sure what you are referring to in the sterilization case, but in my Cajun lineage mind you are just re-enforcing my argument about how illogical the legal system is. On one hand there is my body my choice. On the other hand, with the jab, you are given NO choice. Same geniuses that came up with Hate Crime law. Funny how that one is usually used on one group of people almost exclusively.
Sorry, but why would I ever want to read thru all the nuanced and stinkin-thinkin of a s.c. ruling. The same s.c that issues a ruling against veggy joe and immigration policy, then stands by while it's ruling is ignored.
Thanks to very little push back on the jab, we get to watch these black robed thugs make the final decision. My guess it will be the wrong one.
Our legal system may be "illogical," but it's the one we have. "My body my choice" seems to be the rallying cry of people who won't acknowledge that in this case, we're all in this together. The ability to infect others necessarily makes this "my choice affects other people." And so long as that persists, the law has allowed the government virtually unchecked power in this area for all of American history and for hundreds of years of common law/British history before that. The suggestion that the government lacks the power to impose draconian rules and requirements in the case of infectious disease is a product of going for so long without a genuine public health concern. I have repeatedly stated that I hope it doesn't come to mandates for the vaccines and favor whatever will result in the widest possible vaccination, but if misinformation continues to persist and people keep acting like vaccines are deadly poison despite profound contrary evidence, it's not going to matter what we think and force is going to be what the government is going to use, because having a monopoly on violence is what it means to be a government. No matter how many times I tell people that I disagree with that, one would be a fool not to acknowledge that they have the power to do so, it's just a matter of whether they wish to risk the political consequences of doing it (or not).
Why would you want to read into the nuance? Because courts, unlike the remainder of government officials, are the only government institutions that are required to explain their reasoning. And if the reasoning is unsound, it will be the role of future litigants to point that out so that they can change. Voting different people into power or appointing different judges isn't going to change the outcome in a world where precedent matters. Only by persuading the decision makers that the original ruling was erroneous will even create the possibility of a different outcome on the same facts.
At least we agree on the final point. Given what I've seen from court decisions in the last two years, regardless of red/blue or what, I believe you're correct. It may even be unanimous.
You can take whatever precedents, roll them all up, and shove them up your collective asses.
Edit: If precedent is the god you let rule over you then I'll say a prayer.
Precedent is what the common law is all about. If you don't like it, you can move to mainland Europe where their legal system doesn't seem to care if judges in courtrooms next door to each other apply the law totally differently, even to the same facts. We don't do that here. Our tradition is different.
You sound as if you have confidence in our legal system?
It's really just a matter of acknowledging the reality of what is, rather than expecting it to be some perfect reality that it isn't. Regardless of what you or I think, the law is going to continue as an institution.
That’s why I can have all my rights mostly intact in one state, drive a 3hrs and have state enforcers try to kill me if I exercise the same rights granted in the bill of rights?
For sure we are way better than shit hole Europe, but our house is far from in order.
People just need to just say no to government
If all the ammo companies just said, based on your treatment of individual rights, we don’t think you are responsible enough to have a working firearm, we have plenty of back orders from patriots, we will not make ammo for you anymore.
And that relates to stare decisis how? Not at all. Welcome to arguing with a straw man.
Speaks for itself
Make all the precedence you want in constitutional matters, lest we even bother to read the federalist papers that really leave zero doubt to what our rights mean, cross a state line, still in the US, and all that means jack shit.
The fed seems to step in and say “no no no” when a state gives its citizens “too much” freedom like with say weed or guns, but isn’t nearly as aggressive when a state starts stomping on their citizens rights.
Say all your leftist argument arguments you like, it is what it is, and the courts have been a fucking joke for a loooooong time
You would not happen to be a politician by chance?
Either way I'm not much on commie bastards so on the ignor list you go.
There's something profoundly mature about this post.
Your rights meant shit against the state in 1791. If you don't believe me, Read Barron v. Baltimore.
If legal positivism is a leftist conspiracy, maybe it's you that needs perspective.
Because everything is settled in a court?
I forgot we won our independence from England via a fucking lawsuit right?
Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia
No, because the Constitution, as it was written, was not set up to protect you against rights violations by the states, only by the feds. And I know the Battle of Athens was in pop culture the last few days, but I don't know how it is related.Because everything is settled in a court?
I forgot we won our independence from England via a fucking lawsuit right?
Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
While “less than zero”is back to making a lucid argument, his steadfast arrogance is shocking. First...with regard to common law, the 5th circuit did cite a cause to believe....”grave constitutional and statutory issues”. Now whether this trend holds up is questionable, the court has upheld the federal governments authority in these areas.Nevertheless, it’s hardly settled law. With regard to the efficacy,safety etc of the vaccine...well Dr. Carson just questioned its use in children, and more and more evidence to support concern is released everyday. To “zero’s” point of inevitability, I wonder if “...consent of the governed” will ultimately wield the legal and political influence as it did with prohibition.
Not only that, but the rule was that the police power, an extremely broad power that was virtually limitless, was possessed by the states. They used it to do all sorts of things we'd all disagree with, legally.
Listen, gents. I wish the founders created the libertarian utopia we all dream of a long time ago, but they didn't. We're stuck with the government they created, with some limits that we want and without others I wish we had. Such is reality.
I wish they were as bad ass as we need them to be. As long as we still have laws requiring the wearing of a seatbelt, I'm not sure there's much more we can do to restore the liberty they envisioned, however.
“Nothing can be done”
“The courts says so”
Me thinks it is more like a prostitution these days. You can argue the esoteric crap out of the legal system, but this boob will still say that the system is broken and is just another cesspool of corruption within the d.c. swamp.
You ask, Rady how could you think such a thing? Easy.......... All I have to do is look at the Jan. 6 "rioters/terrorists" being held in solitary confinement, many without being charged. Marjorie Greene visit should be an eye opener as to how perverse the legal system has become. Meanwhile, those lovely blm and antifa assholes rape, pillage, and burn while the cops chomp donuts and look on.
You're right. The system is not some perfect reality........No, it's the perfect nightmare.
I haven't argued anything or even given a position. I really don't take any position on the entire legal system generally other than that I have strong reason to believe that when both of us are dead and gone, it will look a lot like it does now. The nature of law is that it changes very slowly, for better or worse, that's just kinda how it is.
I don't think it's really a perfect reality or a perfect nightmare, although it has features of both depending on the circumstances. But my point is more "it is what it is," in that neither of us can unilaterally change it much, so we might as well familiarize ourselves with what is, so we can talk rationally about what reforms are realistically possible. I've never thought myself that much of a pragmatist, but in my old age, I'm becoming less and less idealistic that radical changes are possible.
There is so much stuff fucked up today about the Legal System. One of the worst things in my mind is its inability to cope with modern digital media.
Modern media is so incredibly powerful you almost cannot have a trial without the rough equivalent of Jury Tampering. I have felt that anyone presenting a united front (a conspiracy) to defame a defendent in front of all potential jurors should have consequences after the trial.
It doesn't work that way.
As for Choid and Downzero's statements, I appreciate them. I appreciate them because we all feel that if we just returned to early 1800's law it would be ok....and thus we attack the wrong enemy.
Our legal system needs comprehensive reform from top to bottom that is far stronger than what the Founders envisioned necessary because the threats to its integrity are far stronger than the Founders envisioned. They felt the problem would be self-limiting because at the resource levels they were used to it was. This is no longer true at all. Limitations need to be strong, and explicit.
I'm a white hat computer hacker, for example, and an expert on digital forensics. Don't even get me started on digital evidence - never in my life have I felt more opposed to something our court system adores.
Digital evidence is like a universal dead body that can be copied over and over and over again and just dumped off in your lap in a puddle of digital blood...It should flat out be inadmissible 100% of the time. Especially since virtually every digital forensic technique is publicly known, and every one of them is able to be counterfeited.
Modern media is so incredibly powerful you almost cannot have a trial without the rough equivalent of Jury Tampering. I have felt that anyone presenting a united front (a conspiracy) to defame a defendent in front of all potential jurors should have consequences after the trial.
It doesn't work that way.
As for Choid and Downzero's statements, I appreciate them. I appreciate them because we all feel that if we just returned to early 1800's law it would be ok....and thus we attack the wrong enemy.
Our legal system needs comprehensive reform from top to bottom that is far stronger than what the Founders envisioned necessary because the threats to its integrity are far stronger than the Founders envisioned. They felt the problem would be self-limiting because at the resource levels they were used to it was. This is no longer true at all. Limitations need to be strong, and explicit.
I'm a white hat computer hacker, for example, and an expert on digital forensics. Don't even get me started on digital evidence - never in my life have I felt more opposed to something our court system adores.
Digital evidence is like a universal dead body that can be copied over and over and over again and just dumped off in your lap in a puddle of digital blood...It should flat out be inadmissible 100% of the time. Especially since virtually every digital forensic technique is publicly known, and every one of them is able to be counterfeited.
Similar threads
