In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 30 2016 22:02 Toadesstern wrote: I think he's trying to say that Cruz is an Anchor Baby IN Canada, as in, the parents had him so that they could stay in Canada and only decided to move to the US later?
Otherwise this doesn't really make sense.
I mean from a quick Wiki search both his parents had concrete jobs with a legitimate company so I don't think they would have had even a teensy tiny problem remaining in the country as long as they wanted. Even if that's what Trump meant it's pretty incoherent.
Incidentally, by saying Cruz isn't a "real" citizen, Trump would be saying he wants to end both just-birthright and just-descent citizenship, which is an...interesting...policy position.
It really is bizarre. I can see where someone might not like birthright by land citizenship. It creates a lot of bad situations if you ever have cause to deport the parents, and you see a lot of mid-high income Chinese nationals exploiting it as a hedge against political unrest. But lineal citizenship has no such issues...
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
"Social change never happens overnight," he said. "It is a slog and there are times when you just have to chip away and chip away. ... It's reliant on all of us to keep pushing that boulder up the hill."
That right there is why Obama has changed from a middling president I voted for, to a great president who will be on dollar bills within 10 years of his death.
Poe's law in action people.
Obama is going to leave office with a 46-48% approval rating. Presidential approval ratings go up over time (Bush2 is somehow around 40% now). Just because you hate incremental, positive, social change doesn't mean the rest of the country does.
Obama never went above 64% approval rating during his 8 years in office, which is the lowest any president has had since these approval ratings have been measured. He also has the lowest approval rating among 'the other party' of any US president in history (14%).
He has been the most divisive president the US has had since the civil war and it will take decades to get one half of the country working with the other half again. Thanks Obama.
Obama doesn't hate you.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Good one.
Obama definitely hates the conservatives in this country. He's been slamming us since he came on the scene. Now if you happen to agree with his politics it might just look like he's "calling it how it is" when he accuses Republicans of being racists, bigots, bitter clingers, un-American, says we want dirty air and dirty water, etc. The Democrats eat that stuff up because they are on the other side, but to us on the receiving end of our own President's constant insults, it gets a little old. Especially when professional victim Obama pretends like no one ever had any opposition before he came along.
Is he aware that we've had Presidents assassinated before? Is he aware of the accusations that Reagan had Alzheimer's and that Nancy was a psychopath? Is he aware of major celebrities on major networks saying Bush2 should be raped, murdered, was responsible for 9/11, had stolen two elections?
Obama had it easy. His approval ratings among Republicans when he got elected were in the mid-40s. His opposition in 2008, McCain, lectured his own voters about how wonderful a man Obama was, how much of a patriot he was, how great his family was. The only real, public opposition to Obama when he got into office was 4-words from Rush Limbaugh, and Rush is still being raked over the coals for saying it. 99% of celebrities and media figures were open supporters of his. His party also had a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate.
For the first two years of his Presidency, Obama was literally playing on Easy-Mode... and he still managed to get almost nothing accomplished. At this point, he deserves any hate he gets. He's more than earned it.
Of course, I'm just one of those racist, bigot, homophobic, bitter clingers who is un-American and just a relic of the past, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Are you talking about President Obama? Or are you talking about Micheal Moore? Because Micheal Moore really has correctly called out a lot of racist, bigot, homophobic, bitter clingers who are un-American and relics of the past. But it is another thing to get those words to come out of President Obama's mouth. You are going to have to show your work linking actual words from President Obama that caused your tearful agony.
Pretty sure all you got is the bitter clinging quote from back in the day. And it doesn't count if a lefty blogger says it. It needs to be Obama if you want to try to shift blame for your and the collective right's hate onto Obama instead of yourself.
// What is up with the Presidents assassinated line? Are you saying Obama risks assassination because he didn't assuage conservative butt-hurt with enough vigor?
I don't quite understand your position here. Is it your contention that Obama doesn't think Republicans are racists, or that he hasn't explicitly said the word "racist" in connection with Republicans?
Let me put it another way. Do you think a lot of Republicans have some racist bias against Obama? Do you think Republicans must either want dirty air and dirty water, or be so shortsighted they don't understand the end result of their actions will directly lead to dirtier air and water? Do you think Kim Davis is bitterly clinging to her dumb conception of religion in the face of changing times? Is there a lot of implicit bigotry in Trump's suggestion to ban Muslims from entering the country, and does that reflect the implicit bigotry within the Republican party and the right wing as a whole?
Why do you think Obama doesn't feel that way? I'm saying he obviously does, and I'm saying it bleeds through into his responses to opposition from the conservative movement. Whether he uses the specific words or not is trivial, he makes sure to let us know that's what he means:
“So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”
Obama definitely hates conservatives, and for many of them the feeling is mutual. I can understand and respect, to a certain degree, Obama's feelings. If I thought someone was a bigoted, racist, stupid, bitter-clinger who hated me, I wouldn't like them either. I don't really respect the victim-card stuff though. Every President experienced harsh opposition, but Obama suddenly wants to act like George W. Bush was just universally loved and respected and never had to deal with people who hated him. Conservative hate for Obama is pathetic compared to some of the stuff Presidents and politicians in the past had to deal with.
A rodeo clown lost his job, was slammed by national and social media for days on end, and was banned from the rodeo for life for wearing an Obama mask. When that is the kind of thing that happens, Obama loses the right to talk about dealing with opposition. People can't even make fun of him without being called racist and having their lives destroyed. He came in swinging and has kept swinging this entire time, but you want to act like Republicans are the only ones trying to fight.
On January 31 2016 04:52 Cowboy64 wrote: A rodeo clown lost his job, was slammed by national and social media for days on end, and was banned from the rodeo for life for wearing an Obama mask. When that is the kind of thing that happens, Obama loses the right to talk about dealing with opposition. People can't even make fun of him without being called racist and having their lives destroyed. He came in swinging and has kept swinging this entire time, but you want to act like Republicans are the only ones trying to fight.
Wait, how is that Obama's fault? Pretty sure that's mostly the recent wave of PC nonsense and social media lynching, which Obama has seemed to frown upon more than embrace.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
That basically sums up the difference between them to me as well.
That's funny.You think the ACA would have passed (or even been brought to a vote) if HRC won in 08?
HRC has openly said her campaign isn't about accomplishing things as much as it is preventing the republicans from taking away "progress", that's not pragmatic, it's just unambitious.
Hillary want's to run as being the prevent defense to Republicans, and NFL fans know what "prevent" defense does.
As an aside, is anyone who thinks Hillary will win volunteering for her campaign?
Damn. Things are definitely looking up for Trump's Iowa chances. I really wanted to see his catastrophic meltdown if he lost.
I guess there's still a chance that the caucus process will result in numbers more like phone-in-person interviews than emails, which would lead to him substantially unperforming, but he would probably slide by anyway.
The other way he might underperform is because he has such low second-choice rates, and the caucus environment can punish that...but the candidates are not helping their supporters band together.
Liz Cheney is seeking a return to politics with a run for Wyoming’s lone House seat.
The elder daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney is ready to announce Monday, the Associated Press first reported Saturday. She filed paperwork with the FEC on Friday to make her candidacy official.
Liz Cheney ran unsuccessfully for a U.S. Senate seat in 2013, but failed to gain traction among Wyoming’s political establishment.
Cheney cited personal reasons in 2014 for abandoning her Senate campaign. At the time she hinted at another future campaign: "At some point, I will be running for something else. This isn’t the right time for my family."
The campaign was also marked by the disapproval of her sister, Mary Cheney, who criticized Liz Cheney's stance on gay marriage.
If O'Malley does surprisingly well we'll have a good idea of why...
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president is instructing its Iowa caucus leaders to — in certain cases — throw support to former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, with the goal blocking her main opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, from securing additional delegates.
The tactical move is rooted in the complex math of the Iowa caucuses Monday night, where the campaign is looking to defeat Sanders in a state whose caucus-goers have historically backed progressive challengers.
A precinct captain, Jerome Lehtola, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the campaign has trained precinct captains to release supporters to O’Malley if the move can make him “viable” without hurting Clinton. A Clinton aide said the campaign has trained more than 4,000 volunteer precinct captains to handle a host of different scenarios, including ones where caucus-goers are released to or recruited from another camp
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
On January 31 2016 15:25 Soap wrote: The real answer to "business not profitable enough for health insurance" is "close it and get a job". Government shouldn't be based on sob stories.
Having a job =/= being able to afford healthcare.
Also impressive what millions of dollars in donations and fees can do to some people's opinions on universal healthcare.
"No we can't!" isn't quite as catchy as "Yes we can"
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
I'll give HuffPo props: they started out fine. Republicans have spent six years promising to repeal Obamacare. They could've even written a different article to make good points in that vein. Endless votes ending in vetoes have damaged the credibility of the repeal efforts. Republican leaders have already pledged to do anything to keep the government running, meaning their one card to play is frozen. They've violated campaign pledges and will look to lose seats in both houses in November. After all, they have nothing to show for campaign promises for limited government and health care reform.
However, all we get is the bleeding heart tripe that's trotted out every time there's a push for limited government. It doesn't matter if ten families are struggling to cope with their increased health premiums and it's crushing them. They'll find someone with a story to tell hitting all the major heartstrings. He's a hard worker, a small business owner, he didn't get checkups from financial necessity, his life-saving Obamacare came too late! It's a Hollywood plotline, the kind that ignores the millions of others that lost health care plans they liked from Obamacare. Struggling workers sandwiched between rising premiums and rising deductible for the entry-level plans are just a statistic (NYT). One large health insurance provider pulling out of the exchange
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make.
It's actually rather telling, this bit. One side has stopped listening--it doesn't really matter what follows. He asked a question ala "What are you going to do?" If you're a Clinton supporter, or what qualifies as journalists these days, nothing short of a complete disavowal of the policies you advocate to fix the exact problem will suffice. Wrap it up with the contrast of laughter against the grieving man. It suits the hit job that was evident from "refused to acknowledge" onward.
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
I'll give HuffPo props: they started out fine. Republicans have spent six years promising to repeal Obamacare. They could've even written a different article to make good points in that vein. Endless votes ending in vetoes have damaged the credibility of the repeal efforts. Republican leaders have already pledged to do anything to keep the government running, meaning their one card to play is frozen. They've violated campaign pledges and will look to lose seats in both houses in November. After all, they have nothing to show for campaign promises for limited government and health care reform.
However, all we get is the bleeding heart tripe that's trotted out every time there's a push for limited government. It doesn't matter if ten families are struggling to cope with their increased health premiums and it's crushing them. They'll find someone with a story to tell hitting all the major heartstrings. He's a hard worker, a small business owner, he didn't get checkups from financial necessity, his life-saving Obamacare came too late! It's a Hollywood plotline, the kind that ignores the millions of others that lost health care plans they liked from Obamacare. Struggling workers sandwiched between rising premiums and rising deductible for the entry-level plans are just a statistic (NYT). One large health insurance provider pulling out of the exchange
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make.
It's actually rather telling, this bit. One side has stopped listening--it doesn't really matter what follows. He asked a question ala "What are you going to do?" If you're a Clinton supporter, or what qualifies as journalists these days, nothing short of a complete disavowal of the policies you advocate to fix the exact problem will suffice. Wrap it up with the contrast of laughter against the grieving man. It suits the hit job that was evident from "refused to acknowledge" onward.
The problem is the same as it has always been. So Obamacare is bad. What better system do you have? All Republicans have done is yell "its bad, its bad" over and over again and not once did even a hint of solution present itself.
its always "its bad" never "this would be better".
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience.
I'll give HuffPo props: they started out fine. Republicans have spent six years promising to repeal Obamacare. They could've even written a different article to make good points in that vein. Endless votes ending in vetoes have damaged the credibility of the repeal efforts. Republican leaders have already pledged to do anything to keep the government running, meaning their one card to play is frozen. They've violated campaign pledges and will look to lose seats in both houses in November. After all, they have nothing to show for campaign promises for limited government and health care reform.
However, all we get is the bleeding heart tripe that's trotted out every time there's a push for limited government. It doesn't matter if ten families are struggling to cope with their increased health premiums and it's crushing them. They'll find someone with a story to tell hitting all the major heartstrings. He's a hard worker, a small business owner, he didn't get checkups from financial necessity, his life-saving Obamacare came too late! It's a Hollywood plotline, the kind that ignores the millions of others that lost health care plans they liked from Obamacare. Struggling workers sandwiched between rising premiums and rising deductible for the entry-level plans are just a statistic (NYT). One large health insurance provider pulling out of the exchange
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make.
It's actually rather telling, this bit. One side has stopped listening--it doesn't really matter what follows. He asked a question ala "What are you going to do?" If you're a Clinton supporter, or what qualifies as journalists these days, nothing short of a complete disavowal of the policies you advocate to fix the exact problem will suffice. Wrap it up with the contrast of laughter against the grieving man. It suits the hit job that was evident from "refused to acknowledge" onward.
The problem is the same as it has always been. So Obamacare is bad. What better system do you have? All Republicans have done is yell "its bad, its bad" over and over again and not once did even a hint of solution present itself.
its always "its bad" never "this would be better".
In fairness they have offered alternatives, problem is none have ever had a solution for pre-existing conditions (among other aspects covered in the ACA).
Problem is the conservative solution for them is the one Obama used and they fought.
On January 31 2016 15:25 Soap wrote: The real answer to "business not profitable enough for health insurance" is "close it and get a job". Government shouldn't be based on sob stories.
Because as we know, a "job" solves all the issues with the US health care system. Ignore the fact that "a job" certainly doesn't mean that you're able to afford health insurance. Especially not pre-ACA.
Ted Cruz has come under fire just two days before the Iowa caucuses for sending mailers to voters here that accuse them of a “voting violation”, earning the Texas senator and his campaign a formal denunciation by top officials in the first-in-the-nation voting state.
The mailers, which came to light on Friday and were confirmed by Cruz’s campaign as their own, include a voting score and the phrase “official public record”. They call out by name not only the recipients, but also their neighbors, as part of a broader attempt to shame Iowans for not having participated in prior elections.
Paul Pate, Iowa’s Republican secretary of state, condemned Cruz’s campaign on Saturday for distributing the mailers. He said the strategy “misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law”.
“Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act,” Pate said in a statement.
“There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa caucuses.”
Cruz struck a defiant tone in a swift response: “I apologize to nobody for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,” he said at a press conference in Sioux City on Saturday evening. The senator went on to argue that the Iowa Republican Party had previously used such mailers and characterized them as “routine”.
The literature was “a standard mailer that folks at the Iowa Republican party and other get-out-the-vote groups have used to help motivate low-propensity voters,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “We’re going to do everything we can to turn these folks out.”
Matt Schultz, Cruz’s Iowa state chairman and a former secretary of state here, added that the mailer was modelled after similar mailers in the 2014 midterm elections that were sent out by the Republican party of Iowa.
On January 31 2016 15:25 Soap wrote: The real answer to "business not profitable enough for health insurance" is "close it and get a job". Government shouldn't be based on sob stories.
No the answer is fire workers or cut hours or both.
EPT
