- This topic has 1,090 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM #459364September 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM #458575
dbapig
Participant[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.[/quote]
Being deceived by Bush.
Being deceived by Obama.We will see in a few years.
September 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM #458765Participant[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.[/quote]
Being deceived by Bush.
Being deceived by Obama.We will see in a few years.
September 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM #459101Participant[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.[/quote]
Being deceived by Bush.
Being deceived by Obama.We will see in a few years.
September 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM #459174Participant[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.[/quote]
Being deceived by Bush.
Being deceived by Obama.We will see in a few years.
September 18, 2009 at 1:08 PM #459369Participant[quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]From what I have seen, you are correct in your assessment of those folks at these events. Many of those interviewed even say they voted for Obama. They are upset because they didn’t expect what he is trying to do.
Even my wife, an independent, who voted for Obama, thought she was voting for something totally different than what we are getting. My in-laws, a surgeon and nurse both voted for Obama but are also very dismayed over what has been happening and up in arms about the drastic changes proposed to health care.
[/quote]Claiming some/many/most of the marchers voted for Obama doesn’t mean anything.
Assuming they did vote for Obama and they are unhappy with what the administration is trying to do, well they obviously didn’t do their homework. Reforming healthcare was a pretty prominent goal of Obama campaign.
And the other issues (bailing out banks/Big3) was an issue that he inherited. Only if Bush Administration or his officials did their work right, we wouldn’t have all these bailouts.
And the in-laws (surgeon and nurse), well the health care reform isn’t for the surgeon and nurses in a sense. It’s for the general public. The medical establishment want better return on their investment (who wouldn’t right?), which the general public just cannot support any more. What did they expect out of Obama campaign calling for reform of the health system?
And your wife who’s an independent, so what did she vote for? I’m sure it’s something different from what Bush stood for? In that regard, she got what she wanted imho.[/quote]
I would think the fact that some voted for Obama does mean that they aren’t necessarily racists, fringe elements or haters.
True, they could have done better research into what Obama really stood for, but I think the media let these folks down by not exposing Obama’s real intentions or background. And I think Obama went out of his way to portray himself as a a moderate. And while health care reform was on the agenda that doesn’t mean these folks supported all or even most of what he is now proposing.
If Obama wants to put an end to pre-existing conditions or being dropped from coverage or work to limit drug costs and enact tort reform, he could do that very easily with almost unanimous bipartisan support and for almost no cost to taxpayers what so ever. Folks too also almost unanimously support these.
Next, blaming the financial crisis on Bush means you aren’t doing your homework. Bush and McCain both warned of massive loan problems emanating from Dem run and overseen, Fannie and Freddie, and rule forcing loans to be made to folks with dubious credit.
And the Dems (Clinton signed the bill in 2000)had a big part in allowing dubious financial instruments to be exchange traded. These mortgage instruments had been illegal since the depression.
And by the way, it’s almost a year later and the Obama Administration and our Congress has done nothing to end this trading.So while you contend these folks who voted for Obama got what they wanted, I think it is pretty obvious they haven’t got what they wanted and they are willing to stand up and say so. Worse still for the Democratic party and Obama is that these folks now feel, rightfully imo, that they were deceived.[/quote]
Being deceived by Bush.
Being deceived by Obama.We will see in a few years.
September 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM #458580Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
felix, no response to this post I see. Are you thinking about it still or you chose not to respond?
September 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM #458770Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
felix, no response to this post I see. Are you thinking about it still or you chose not to respond?
September 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM #459106Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
felix, no response to this post I see. Are you thinking about it still or you chose not to respond?
September 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM #459179Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
felix, no response to this post I see. Are you thinking about it still or you chose not to respond?
September 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM #459374Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
felix, no response to this post I see. Are you thinking about it still or you chose not to respond?
September 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM #458590Participant[quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”
September 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM #458780Participant[quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”
September 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM #459116Participant[quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”
September 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM #459189Participant[quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.