Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

I work for one of the largest globohomo companies in the US as a software developer. They just announced that they are requiring all remote and on site employees to take the clot shot by Oct 15. If you don’t comply you will be “separated from the company”. Their words. I work remotely 1000s of miles away from their headquarters in Washington.

The fact that they are mandating remote employees tells you a lot. This isn’t about protecting people. This is about control and compliance with the narrative. All wrong thinking employees must be terminated.

I plan to file a religious exemption but I doubt that they will accept it because I don’t go to church. Man, these stupid HR reps better be careful with what they say to me because I’ll take all of it to a lawyer to see if I have a case. Anyways, I’m not taking the shot. Period. I will lose my 6 figure salary before I take that damned thing. Maybe I’ll start a BS non profit and funnel tax dollars into my pocket, idk. I’m tired of being a net positive on the clown economy. I’m tired of being a good goy.

I work for one of the largest globohomo companies in the US as a software developer. They just announced that they are requiring all remote and on site employees to take the clot shot by Oct 15. If you don’t comply you will be “separated from the company”. Their words. I work remotely 1000s of miles away from their headquarters in Washington. The fact that they are mandating remote employees tells you a lot. This isn’t about protecting people. This is about control and compliance with the narrative. All wrong thinking employees must be terminated. I plan to file a religious exemption but I doubt that they will accept it because I don’t go to church. Man, these stupid HR reps better be careful with what they say to me because I’ll take all of it to a lawyer to see if I have a case. Anyways, I’m not taking the shot. Period. I will lose my 6 figure salary before I take that damned thing. Maybe I’ll start a BS non profit and funnel tax dollars into my pocket, idk. I’m tired of being a net positive on the clown economy. I’m tired of being a good goy.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (158).
[–] • 1 pt 3y

This guy nil keeps pushing things that seem like it could be right to the uneducated but totally wrong to a subject matter expert.

Case in point his breakdown of the Brandenburg test in another thread which was purposefully deceitful in telling Poalers that threatening imminent harm is free speech as long as the timeframe is over 365 days. That's getting you arrested.

[–] • 1 pt 3y (edited 3y)

WRONG

All I type here is 100% factual, and you seem to not know SCOTUS case law on definition of the word "IMMINENT" , and I provided helpful links, and facts and TIME FRAME.

over 365 is no longer "IMMINENT" in US case law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Are you a new account paid jew leftist disenchanting SHILL?

You are obviously uneducated in law.

Your tactic of trying to correct me in matters I comment upon is comical to me and indicative of a classic ADL / SPLC / JIDF / ShareBlue attack method to run-off educated users from "free speech hate sites".

YOU ARE A PAID LEFTIST SHILL ACCOUNT and an alt of 'dadudemon1'!

https://files.catbox.moe/dv66rp.jpg

How's the weather in Tel Aviv, rabbi?

↓ expand content
[–] • 0 pt 3y (edited 3y)

First learning about the Brandenburg test while using Wikipedia and being unable to check a user profile date for account creation as you along the "new shill" trope? Yep, you're a literal retard who is unqualified to give out information and the information you do give out is harmful.

Imminent has no time expiration. Specifying 366 days in advance still meets the threshold. You're going to get someone arrested.

FROF

Anyone reading this, look at how insane and full of copy/pasted distracting crap that the previous user is putting up to justify trying to get you arrested. Imminent doesn't mean happening soon, it means happening at a generally specific date and time. For example, "I'm going to kill you next year on Thanksgiving with a .50 caliber sniper rifle from the roof of your neighbor's house" doesn't pass the test even if it's over one year out.

Source: LexisNexis but most of you don't even know what that is.

[–] • 0 pt 3y

Case in point his breakdown of the Brandenburg test in another thread which was purposefully deceitful in telling Poalers that threatening imminent harm is free speech as long as the timeframe is over 365 days. That's getting you arrested.

Unsure about the 365 days thing but there is a "immediacy" means test to criminally threats of violence.

Unprotected violence speech must have the following criteria:

  1. Be intended to provoke imminent lawless action; and

  2. Be likely to cause such action.

https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/freedom-of-speech-exceptions-categories-of-speech-not-protected/

So like you said, he seems rather full of shit.