AstroAg17 said:

---

You think people in the Atheist Club haven't heard the gospel?

---

Oh, I'm sure they all have to some degree. I'm sure most adults that accept Christ had heard it many times throughout their life.

Atheists should be allowed to have all the billboards that they want. In this case, $$$ pressure got rid of it by customers, which I also support.

Guadaloop474 said:

---

Atheists should be allowed to have all the billboards that they want. In this case, $$$ pressure got rid of it by customers, which I also support.

---

I support the right to boycott as well. The question is did their efforts to have it removed simply increase exposure of the billboard, and therefore become counterproductive? I see this is a missed opportunity and a little short-sighted.

I guess guad doesn't support full drug legalization.

boboguitar said:

---

I guess guad doesn't support full drug legalization.

---

Oh, he totally does. It's not in the Constitution, therefore he clearly supports a repeal of all federal drug laws.

Let's face it, there are a lot of laws and rules that aren't explicitly in the constitution. It would be strange to rule out only some of them on the basis of not being explicitly in the constitution.

BusterAg said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Guadaloop474 said:

---

It's none of the government's business what is in EWTN's health care package. It's none of the government's business what is in Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It's none of the government's business what is in the Little Sisters of the Poor's health care plan.

If people don't like their health care plan, they can change jobs.

---

In principle, I agree.

Is there any danger in not setting a minimum to what a health care package must cover? Its fine and good to say that people can change their jobs and that the market can regulate itself. . . .but what incentive does a company have to provide good insurance to its employees if the quality of health care coverage is very low? Employees can do what? Switch from a job with terrible health coverage to one with slightly less terrible health coverage.

I don't completely disagree with you - I am, in part, just playing devil's advocate here. In a system without any regulation, how to you prevent the healthcare version of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle?

---

I think that there absolutely needs to be regulation about effective communication of benefits and following up to your promises.

For example, we need to have a situation where "Deductible" has a defined meaning, with no squishyness for it to be multiplied x10 if you happen to come down with a rare form of cancer hidden in the fine print.

But, what we currently have is an over-regulation about what must be covered for free in an insurance plan driving up the price of insurance on everyone.

---

I think it's a reasonable position to say the govt has crossed a line in forcing certain things. I think Guad takes too hard of a line to say that the govt has no place in consumer protection.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I think that there absolutely needs to be regulation about effective communication of benefits and following up to your promises.

For example, we need to have a situation where "Deductible" has a defined meaning, with no squishyness for it to be multiplied x10 if you happen to come down with a rare form of cancer hidden in the fine print.

But, what we currently have is an over-regulation about what must be covered for free in an insurance plan driving up the price of insurance on everyone.

---

I think it's a reasonable position to say the govt has crossed a line in forcing certain things. I think Guad takes too hard of a line to say that the govt has no place in consumer protection.

---

I agree. Society can just be more efficient if we force companies not to swindle people. Efficiency equals higher living standards and less suffering.

However, you go too far down the regulation line, and the government is such a blood sucking leech that it crushes any potential efficiency gains.

RetiredAg said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

You think people in the Atheist Club haven't heard the gospel?

---

Oh, I'm sure they all have to some degree. I'm sure most adults that accept Christ had heard it many times throughout their life.

---

Absolutely.

In fact, most people in atheist clubs, who have a firm rejectionist belief, were former Christians that were hurt by their experiences. In general, the people who grew up not being Christians either don't think about it or don't really care all that much.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/

RetiredAg said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

I guess guad doesn't support full drug legalization.

---

Oh, he totally does. It's not in the Constitution, therefore he clearly supports a repeal of all federal drug laws.

---

There are unfurtunately plenty on this site that will gladly hold those hypocritical views. Constitutional government as long as it fits their views, otherwise they are just fine with the feds gaining power.

I don't know if guad is one of them but his silence leads me to believe he probably is.

All for state laws against drugs....

According to the Constitution, legislation regarding drug use and abuse is a State level issue. The issue is not addressed specifically in the text of the U.S. Constitution, so it falls under the broad umbrella of powers that our Founders "left to the States and the people" in the 10th Amendment.

Alcohol prohibition in the United States from 1919 to 1933 was supported by an actual constitutional amendment. Drug prohibition is not. This is an important point because, unless something has drastically changed, drug prohibition would also require a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by the States, to have any semblance of legitimacy. Drug prohibition is simply a federal power grab. It's an end-run around the Constitutional Amendment process because such an amendment would never pass. So, while social conservatives may believe that it is perfectly reasonable for the Federal Government to impose harsh criminal penalties on what free citizens can put in their own bodies, our Founders clearly disagreed.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/05/is-the-drug-war-constitutional/

You do understand that the powers enumerated in the Constitution were left intentionally vague for a reason, right? The framers did not pretend to know how everything that would come up would need to be regulated and so they gave broad, often contradictory powers to the federal government and the states. The transport of drugs can legitimately be said to fall under interstate commerce. And I say that as someone who wants drugs legalized.

LondonOllie said:

---

I 100% agree with the billboard, but obviously others see it as a threat. Alternative views obviously not welcome by some.

---

You mean liberals?