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.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.AstroAg17 said:
You think people in the Atheist Club haven't heard the gospel?
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.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.
Oh, he totally does. It's not in the Constitution, therefore he clearly supports a repeal of all federal drug laws.boboguitar said:
I guess guad doesn't support full drug legalization.
BusterAg said:I think that there absolutely needs to be regulation about effective communication of benefits and following up to your promises.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?
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 agree. Society can just be more efficient if we force companies not to swindle people. Efficiency equals higher living standards and less suffering.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.
Absolutely.RetiredAg said: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.AstroAg17 said:
You think people in the Atheist Club haven't heard the gospel?
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.RetiredAg said:Oh, he totally does. It's not in the Constitution, therefore he clearly supports a repeal of all federal drug laws.boboguitar said:
I guess guad doesn't support full drug legalization.
LondonOllie said:
I 100% agree with the billboard, but obviously others see it as a threat. Alternative views obviously not welcome by some.
DryFly said: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?