If "they" were actually as good at planning as some here seem to think, there'd be no hope or even point in trying to do differebtky than their plans, since they would have planned for that. Birds don't take off in a flock all in the same direction at once due to planning, but because they are all like-minded.
His own statement was about attending the course, not about agreeing with it. That's the crux of the issue. All that garbage is stupid, but unless they were trying to force agreement, which i didn't see in the linked article, then he has no case.
No. Again you are making an argument that has nothing to do with what you posted. What you posted was not about excess deaths, but excess disappearances. Excess disappearances involves things like hikers being buried in an avalanche when noone knows about it, and people being abducted without any witnesses. I never once disagreed that there seems to be an excess death rate after introduction of these supposed vaccines. If you want to talk about excess deaths, then that should have been what you showed in the original post.
Everything you state on cases is true, but irrelavent, I think. What he was compelled to do was to sit in a room and be paid as people said things he disagreed with. He was not compelled to agree, or speak, or any other 1st amendment issue. I can't see how he would win on a 1st amendment basis. It's possible there's some ither legal basis for objection, but I don't see it. Disagreement with the premise of a claim is not a basis for refusal to attend training. Flip it around. A church can't be compelled to retain an employee who openly disagrees with it's religious statements. And this is exactly what this is. The school is a state sponsored church preaching it's dogma. And before someone tries the separation of church and state argument, the Federal government is Constitutionally barred from having an official religion. The states are not.
Doubtful. Under Obamacare's full time definition of 30 hrs per week, many companies just started hiring more workers for less hours. You can end up working 2 part time jobs to hit the same hours and pay. I don't even know where the Constitution allows for this overreach. But yeah, I know nobody follows that anymore.
As a teenager, i did roofing, built barns, replaced old insulation and drywall, painting jobs, flower gardening for old ladies, cleared overgrown fencelines, cut and sold firewood by the truckload, mowed yards, dug ditches, wired up shops, and anything else people would pay me to do. I now do mostly office work, but I have no respect or sympathy for people who have a msnual labor allergy, or look down on manual laborers. If everyone was an office worker, we'd all starve. If everyone was a farmer, we'd all lack many modern amenities, but we'd live. Modernity takes all kinds, and while some skills are rare and thus more highly paid, all productive work has value.
Semantics is "the meaning of things in a language" and when you complain that someone is arguing semantics, you are arguing semantics by arguing that. Without semantics, there can be no conversation, because we could not understand each other.
There's no such thing as no government. On a deserted island or an isolated valley a single man is the government. If 2 men live there, government is whatever they agree to and are willing to enforce by violence. All governments are an outgrowth of this reality: whatever is allowed and upheld by force, is government.
Insects are more efficient at turning plants into protein. I'm not advocating that we eat them, but that is true. It's also true that meaty animals like pigs, chickens, cows, etc., don't cause global warming, so the entire premise of the argument for eating insects instead is flawed.