The pharmacy that I order my meds from changed their policy. The new policy is that they carry only one brand of medication that I use. It is a different brand than I used before. The pharmacy no longer carries the generic brand I have used in the past. The name brand is not carried either.
OK. Everybody use the same brand medications. Government ordered. Socialized medicine. Government choice. The "Fed." brand medication.
The same brand for everybody. Except I don't want that brand.
* What if I go to the other member pharmacy to see if they have the generic brand I used or the name brand? I have to pay the total cost for the name brand. But what if they only have the one brand that the other pharmacy carries? I can't get the brand I use and I'm dictated this brand I don't want. I can't afford to pay the total cost for the name brand even if they have it. So, I am stuck with what the government wants me to take.
Indirect dictation. Dictation by the numbers. Slipping slowly into government dictation.
Why not build the Dakota Pipeline by the pipelines that are already there instead of plowing through the wilderness?
Pipelines come down to Oklahoma and Texas, into the New Orleans area refineries. The head of the operation admitted that the oil will be going to the refineries near and on the coast. So why dig up the countryside?
Just take the pipe down along the existing network. There are access points. Maps. Information. Worker stations.
What is out there in the middle of nowhere? Burial grounds of removed tribes? Hunting? Fishing? What is the real reason they want the pipeline between the two major distribution points? It would be much better for workers, maintenance, access, repairs, emergencies, wildlife, and protection of water to build it in the location of the existing network.
We've had the argument before. Just stop the pipeline and reroute it.
If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leaders say that the church is pro homosexual, then they are stupid and need to be removed from office.
If the church wants to be pro homosexual then the church needs to stop being the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and become a separate church.
It's OK to promote your beliefs but the process of changing the belief of others to conform to government policies isn't acceptable.
There is a difference between acceptance and promotion of sin and tollerance with forgiveness.
It is not homosexuality that the church is supposed to be against, it's the acceptance of sinful ways and ideas. Sin is what the church is not supposed to practice. It is not to call the sinner to be free in sin. To promote sin is to bring about destruction of individual, church, community, nation, through sin.
The devil- Satan, wants the members of the church to sin. If you want to be on his side then go join his church.
In the end times, it says in the book of Mathew, that men will marry and be given in marriage. Tribulation goes along with this idea.
If men are given in marriage, isn't that like being property, or slavery?
The church promotes that?
You guys out there did a good job against me. I think I understand why now.
Turning sin into a religion is called worshiping the devil. That's not a church.