The senate had more repubs. they were procedurally in charge because of 2 independents who caucused with them, but other than that GOP had a majority..
That being said, if you look at the actual vote tallies every single GOP member voted for it, and more than 60% of the dems against it.
Sure it should, but since the 1st amendment applies to the government and not to a private company whats ya point, even if you could somehow prove he was fired for being white.
in what way am I a "true believer" about the ACA? All I said was the Obama didnt like about being able to keep your doctor, the ACA does not say otherwise
They required you to have a plan that had certian things, not that you could not have additional plans for additioanl coverages. also the ACA did not mandate costs to the doctor, just insurance costs.
Besides the doctors issues were rarely becuase of them dropping out, but of the network cutting them.
yes and as big of a fan of NN as I am if the commish made the that comment I could not count it as a lie. A law can only do what it does. A claim of what a law does can only be taken into a context of what the law does. Carriers were already consolidating networks, trying to blame a continuation of this on the ACA is just silly.
Except it wasn't a lie. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the insurance companies from keeping the old plans or just adding new features, and there was nothing in the bill to do anything with doctors at all. He did not lie, its only when you expand the context to absurdity that you can think of it as a lie.
The problem is what is a lie, far righters will claim that Obama lied when he said you can keep your doctor, the rest of us point out that he was telling the truth in the context he was speaking. The problem is that you need to get into the mind of the accused to prove he had intent to lie, and that is damn near impossible.
How does that work with the ISPs lobby the state government to prevent those things. It is not an issue of the local players, it is of the cost to deploy.
you mean like Trump has been using EOs to legislate via fiat as well? Or does not not fit when trump does it. I mean the EOs that most of your side takes issue with is when Obama lessened regulations, or delayed them, yet when Trump does it, its A OK
You mean like Trumps first SCOTUS appointee? I would take a clinton appointee over that guy any day. Sorry someone who wants to destroy the constitutional protections for his on religious views needs to be disbarred.
And how much is it, I cannot find anything. we pay a total of 320m in aid total to mexico. That is total. The estimate to do the wall is 6-7 billion, and that is very low, but lets take it
That means if you take away ALL aid, not just border security it would take roughly 20 years to make up for the wall. And that is not taking into account the hit on our credibility in the international community either.
Bitcoin is not valuable. Gold and silver are valuable because it has uses outside of money, but bitcoin does not. That is the difference between gold/silver and fiat currency.
Unstable is a matter of degree. Is the dollar unstable? relative to what? Relative to bitcoin it is one of the most stable things you can get. I doubt you will see a price swing of nearly 50% ever, as we have seen with bitcoin.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it was the republicans, the GOP president, ALL the GOP, and SOME dems.....
In fact over 60% of the dems voted AGAINST it.
The senate had more repubs. they were procedurally in charge because of 2 independents who caucused with them, but other than that GOP had a majority..
That being said, if you look at the actual vote tallies every single GOP member voted for it, and more than 60% of the dems against it.
2008 was Bush..... Obama was elected in Nov 2008, but he was not seated until 2009....
So proud you posted as an AC? hmm
Sure it should, but since the 1st amendment applies to the government and not to a private company whats ya point, even if you could somehow prove he was fired for being white.
Only when it comes to the government, not to private companies.
not all currencies use ASIC machines
They will keep the preemption rules and gut the rest making it so there is no NN
in what way am I a "true believer" about the ACA? All I said was the Obama didnt like about being able to keep your doctor, the ACA does not say otherwise
You mean it was created my Romney, and adapted to the nation as opposed to the state.
They required you to have a plan that had certian things, not that you could not have additional plans for additioanl coverages. also the ACA did not mandate costs to the doctor, just insurance costs.
Besides the doctors issues were rarely becuase of them dropping out, but of the network cutting them.
yes and as big of a fan of NN as I am if the commish made the that comment I could not count it as a lie. A law can only do what it does. A claim of what a law does can only be taken into a context of what the law does. Carriers were already consolidating networks, trying to blame a continuation of this on the ACA is just silly.
Except it wasn't a lie. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the insurance companies from keeping the old plans or just adding new features, and there was nothing in the bill to do anything with doctors at all. He did not lie, its only when you expand the context to absurdity that you can think of it as a lie.
Which narrative is this, that Obama lied when he said "you can keep your doctor" or something else? Id so view a few posts below yours...
The problem is what is a lie, far righters will claim that Obama lied when he said you can keep your doctor, the rest of us point out that he was telling the truth in the context he was speaking. The problem is that you need to get into the mind of the accused to prove he had intent to lie, and that is damn near impossible.
and depending on the cause that new roof may even be paid for by the insurance company.
How does that work with the ISPs lobby the state government to prevent those things. It is not an issue of the local players, it is of the cost to deploy.
the ecommerce sites or the ISPs, I would think a closed internet is better for the ISPs
you mean like Trump has been using EOs to legislate via fiat as well? Or does not not fit when trump does it. I mean the EOs that most of your side takes issue with is when Obama lessened regulations, or delayed them, yet when Trump does it, its A OK
You mean like Trumps first SCOTUS appointee? I would take a clinton appointee over that guy any day. Sorry someone who wants to destroy the constitutional protections for his on religious views needs to be disbarred.
And how much is it, I cannot find anything. we pay a total of 320m in aid total to mexico. That is total. The estimate to do the wall is 6-7 billion, and that is very low, but lets take it
That means if you take away ALL aid, not just border security it would take roughly 20 years to make up for the wall. And that is not taking into account the hit on our credibility in the international community either.
How did that obamacare kill bill work out?
That he came within 1% without winning in a seat that has been controlled by conservatives this long doses in deed speak well towards dems platform.
Bitcoin is not valuable. Gold and silver are valuable because it has uses outside of money, but bitcoin does not. That is the difference between gold/silver and fiat currency.
Unstable is a matter of degree. Is the dollar unstable? relative to what? Relative to bitcoin it is one of the most stable things you can get. I doubt you will see a price swing of nearly 50% ever, as we have seen with bitcoin.
I love your analogy, Trump = villain (google|facebook) = heroes.