- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,693
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A Successful 4 Years of Trump
- Thread starter rambot
- Start date
- Apr 13, 2006
- 30,399
- 17,278
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Thank you. You are 100% right. It is asking close to the same question; the first way is phrased as a reflective question meant to be a kind of "looking back" and the second one is more what you hope right now.
I like the idea of a reflective answer but at this point I'd be happy with almost anything. I continue to be grateful that probinson actually put something relevant down.
For the poster who thought this felt like an assignment. Sorry. I honestly thought this would gather a tidal wave of replies and wishes and stuff. You all just handily won a big election. Pretty sure you are relieved and happy.....i dont understand why you're not "pie in the sky"ing ideas.
Instead it feels like mostly trepedation, mistrust, or avoidance. It is, or is totally MEANT to be, an innocent question.
Upvote
0
- Nov 15, 2006
- 52,693
- 18,102
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I am not an expert, either on the web, nor in real life on these matters. But there were three things I really appreciated about Trump his first four years.
1. Border control and the wall combined with his respect and support of our border agents.
2. His approach internationally of peace through strength and his support for the military. Particularly how he helped vets with the BA and medical care.
3. Reducing the regulations and taxes on businesses that made it friendlier to do business here in the US. Remember Apple repatriating 350 billion dollars it held off shore until the taxes came down?
Oh, and his pro energy policies that drove down the cost.
1. Border control and the wall combined with his respect and support of our border agents.
2. His approach internationally of peace through strength and his support for the military. Particularly how he helped vets with the BA and medical care.
3. Reducing the regulations and taxes on businesses that made it friendlier to do business here in the US. Remember Apple repatriating 350 billion dollars it held off shore until the taxes came down?
Oh, and his pro energy policies that drove down the cost.
Upvote
0
probinson
Legend
- Aug 16, 2005
- 24,905
- 4,597
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I understand the intent of the act, but let's consider the following:
Manufacture makes a vaccine.
Government mandates that vaccine for school attendance.
Child takes vaccine.
Child is vaccine injured.
One has to wonder why vaccines are given this special protection. With any other pharmaceutical, if the drug causes harm, the manufacturer could face product liability lawsuits. It is only in the case of vaccines that the government decided that manufacturers may not be held liable for harms caused by their products.
While this may encourage the manufacturer of vaccines as profitable, it also creates an environment where safety need not be paramount, because as long as what you're making is classed as a vaccine and placed on the childhood vaccine schedule, you bear no liability for harms causes by it.
We've been conditioned to believe that vaccines are safe and effective. But that's like saying drugs are safe and effective. Tylenol (a drug) might benefit you in the correct dosage if you have a headache, but fentanyl (a drug) might kill you even in small doses.
Here's an article that articulates that point well.
Vaccines are just like drugs. Some vaccines are safe, some are effective, and some have benefits that exceed harms, but not all. Some vaccines work for some people, but not others.
Vaccines are like drugs: Some are safe, some are effective, and some have benefits > harms, but not all
We need evidence, not virtue signaling.
www.drvinayprasad.com
This law is in serious need of reform. I don't know exactly what that looks like, but giving vaccine manufacturers full exemption from liability is not wise, IMHO.
Upvote
0
- Apr 13, 2006
- 30,399
- 17,278
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
What kind of punishments would you propose for vaccine injury because injury from disease do not get compensated.I understand the intent of the act, but let's consider the following:
Manufacture makes a vaccine.
Government mandates that vaccine for school attendance.
Child takes vaccine.
Child is vaccine injured.
One has to wonder why vaccines are given this special protection. With any other pharmaceutical, if the drug causes harm, the manufacturer could face product liability lawsuits. It is only in the case of vaccines that the government decided that manufacturers may not be held liable for harms caused by their products.
While this may encourage the manufacturer of vaccines as profitable, it also creates an environment where safety need not be paramount, because as long as what you're making is classed as a vaccine and placed on the childhood vaccine schedule, you bear no liability for harms causes by it.
We've been conditioned to believe that vaccines are safe and effective. But that's like saying drugs are safe and effective. Tylenol (a drug) might benefit you in the correct dosage if you have a headache, but fentanyl (a drug) might kill you even in small doses.
Here's an article that articulates that point well.
Vaccines are just like drugs. Some vaccines are safe, some are effective, and some have benefits that exceed harms, but not all. Some vaccines work for some people, but not others.Vaccines are like drugs: Some are safe, some are effective, and some have benefits > harms, but not all
We need evidence, not virtue signaling.
This law is in serious need of reform. I don't know exactly what that looks like, but giving vaccine manufacturers full exemption from liability is not wise, IMHO.
If you get a sore shoulder I'm not sure that deserves compensation. Provable death? Definitely. Long term disability absolutely? Short term? Even that I don't dunno.
Again I agree in theory and there's a lot of wiggle room for good possible legislation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
probinson
Legend
- Aug 16, 2005
- 24,905
- 4,597
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
These are good questions, and as you've pointed out, there is a ton of nuance to be considered.
For starters, if someone is vaccine injured from a MANDATED vaccine, the manufacturer of that vaccine should be liable for damages. At the very least, they should be required to pay the medical bills that result from the injury. Basically, if the mandated vaccination results in provable injury and expenses, those should be covered. Certainly if a mandated vaccine causes death, there should be liability as well. That's a bit harder for me to quantify, because no amount of compensation will make up for a parent losing their child.
Upvote
0
- Apr 13, 2006
- 30,399
- 17,278
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
And yet...your answer could have included something about America actually being better than it is right now.
And it did not.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 20,939
- 4,525
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, there is some hope now. Perhaps a corner has been turned, and some foundations have been reinforced. That is a good and better thing. We have four years to see what happens. It is also true that hopeful people can be easily fooled. Christians are such, and so we can be bamboozled right out. Hopefully not. Hopefully, it will get better. I know that was in my mind when I voted. By better, I mean rather than worse, which is my current conclusion: we all want a peaceful life and home. I hope they take care of the business at hand and, essentially, leave us alone. I hope the same for you and yours RB.
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,637
- 2,397
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I feel Americans have lost with both candidates but I chose the lesser of two evils in my mind. I'm wondering about the policies that will help all Americans not just small groups the media likes to keep our focus on.
- Apr 13, 2006
- 30,399
- 17,278
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Ok fair enough.
But you can't envisage (or you do not have hope for) any particular action by Trump that would be a specific way that things would improve?
You had great concerns about illegal aliens before. You're not hoping for a wall or increased enforcement internally or anything?
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,568
- 50,956
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Trump now backs repeal of Trump cap on ‘SALT’ deductions, says New York Republican. Taxpayers in these states could benefit.
That’s according to statements by Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican who has led the charge within his party to repeal the $10,000 cap on deductions on federal income-tax returns of state and local taxes paid.The SALT cap is estimated to increase federal revenues by about $1.2 trillion over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — but it’s a tax increase that hasn’t sat well with Republican lawmakers, among others, from high-tax states including New York and California, as well as Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and others.
Lawler introduced legislation during the last Congress that would have lifted the cap to $100,000 for single taxpayers and $200,000 for married fliers, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated would cost the Treasury $920 billion over 10 years.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
