Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription
Aug 13th, 2009 | By benwyskida | Category: Essentials 
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has struck a nerve with his op-ed for the Wall Street Journal Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription, trashing President Obama's healthcare proposals. In his op-ed, Mackey writes that "the last thing our country needs .., zithromax in spanish. is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system."
Well. Bartonella zithromax, Whole Foods was already a big, big problem, especially on labor issues, but zithromax online without a prescription, where Mackey has been a leading opponent of the Employee Free Choice Act and compared unionization to "herpes." But on health care he's just lying. Zithromax omeprazole, His op-ed propagates several lies and half-truths about the health care plan:
- It's not an entitlement, like what social security is. That's a lie.
- This is not a government takeover of health care. It's not even close, Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. I wish it was, zithromax chlymidia. All the plan does is reform the insurance industry and create a public insurance option (if we're lucky) that will enroll a small percentage of Americans. Expired zithromax, Anyone who tells you this is a "government takeover" is lying, Mackey included.
- The budget estimates are hundreds of billions over a decade. That's a lot, zithromax to cure std, but it's not "unfunded" and it's minimal in the context of costs from the War in Iraq, Zithromax online consultation us, Bush tax cuts, etc. Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription, The cost argument is a scare tactic that works because the numbers sound big, but in reality they are a small fraction of the massive federal budget.
Mackey's solutions are a deeply, deeply conservative platform that are right out of the George Bush "ownership society" playbook, and have all been proven ineffective in other industries: Deregulation. Tax cuts, zithromax for children under 4. Ending "mandates" of quality care levels for insurance companies. Doing cocaine while on zithromax, And the favorite right-wing straw-man, personal responsibility. If we all just took better care of ourselves (which of course includes shopping at Whole Foods) we wouldn't get sick, zithromax rythmol interaction.
That argument ignores countless realities of our society, from pollution to food/drink additives to a (still) severe lack of access to healthy, affordable food for many Americans, Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. It's odd that the lifestyle Mackey espouses and his Whole Foods brand embodies -- organic, Zithromax azithromycin efficacy past expiration date, natural, healthy, sustainable -- is repeatedly undercut by the political platform he embraces: antagonism towards environmental regulation; a failure to confront the dominance of mass-scale factory farming and agriculture; and an unwillingness to confront urban poverty, zithromax breastfeed, where the problem of "food access" is the worst. Is zithromax safe for fish, Mackey argues vigorously against the "health care as a human right" or moral case for health care, which I imagine puts him at odds with 80% of his customers.
Some people today have argued that what's really galling is how dramatically Mackey's op-ed betrayed and antagonized his own customers, 3 day pack zithromax. That he doesn't understand his brand, Zithromax discoloration, and he's swatting at a hornets nest by being so vocal against health care. DailyKos had a useful piece; the great blog Fair Food Fight is all over this Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription, .
I also saw several posts that went into more detail about whether or not Whole Foods is bad for workers, and how the health care proposals Mackey is espousing are bad for the employees he claims to be taking good care of, over the counter zithromax. That is up for debate; I've seen arguments for both sides of the issue, Key buy zithromax online, and I'll try to do a followup that goes into more detail this week.
To me, it's pretty basic: Mackey is working to oppose things I believe in, zithromax no perscription, so I should stop giving him money. Azithromycin zithromax, That's not easy: I spend a lot of money on food. I also spend a lot of money at Whole Foods, Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. Being inside Whole Foods comforts me, and I'm susceptible to the (false) idea that just by shopping there, resistant chlamydia drug zithromax, whatever I buy, Which is safer amoxicillin or zithromax, I'll be healthier. I'm that guy. I could eat the their prepared chicken salad and those slabs of pizza all day, zithromax pack best price pharmacy. I worship those free sample prosciutto slices.
Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription, But now that Mackey has confirmed for me that my money is going to support deregulation of the insurance industry, lies about the current health care proposal, and a crusade to lecture people who can't access or can't afford healthy food, I'm just not going to go there. Zithromax otitis media, I'll have to take my Nation tote bag somewhere else, and then binge eat someone else's prepared flank steak instead. And that shit is expensive.
The bottom line for me, zithromax for std, reading Mackey's op-ed, is that by shopping at Whole Foods I'm supporting by proxy a donation to the RNC and to health-scare front groups like Patients First. I don't give money to anyone who injects misleading right-wing talking points into the public debate, so I won't be giving money to Whole Foods.
Two quick updates:
First, it's been pointed out that Mackey is a Libertarian. I have a lot of angry comments that I'm calling him a Republican when that's not his affiliation, and the only campaign contributions I found for him are to Libertarian candidates, Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. My point, though, is that with his op-ed, Mackey is injecting in a high-profile way some of the very same half-truths and scare tactics that the R.N.C., leading Republicans and anti-reform lobbyists are using to mislead the public about health care reform.
Additionally, Mackey's "solution" hews very closely to the Republican health care plan presented in early August. His take varies, but the central tenant of deregulation is common to both his and Republican platforms. I don't think we should be deregulating the insurance industry or health care. Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription, So whatever his affiliation at present, his role in this debate is parroting and advancing the current Republican lines of attack.
Second, I was on KPFA this morning (so fun!) talking about this piece, and I promised some links and resources:
Here is the Facebook group urging a boycott. There are over 10,000 members so far.
Here is a petition via Care2.com.
Here is a roundup of media coverage and information on boycott actions at local Whole Foods.
Here is some interesting perspective from Matthew Yglesias on the efficacy of a boycott.
Finally, you can call or write Whole Foods Corporate Offices at:
601 North Lamar St. Suite 300
Austin, TX 78703
512-477-4455
512-477-1069 Fax
Check Whole Foods website for more addresses: http://www.wholefoods.com/company/locations/body/offices.html.
Similar posts: Where Can I Buy Acomplia. Buy Ambien Without A Prescription. Cheap Soma Online. Reductil pas cher. Differin retin. Cheapest diazepam to order online.
Trackbacks from: Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. Zithromax Pharmacy No Prescription. 1000 mg zithromax. Trovan zithromax compliance pak. Zithromax butanol antiretroviral drug.
We don’t have a Whole Foods here, so I’ve never been there.
I’ll keep not shopping at Whole Foods d ^__^ b
I don’t care about health either though, I eat samosas from the Indian take out place for lunch and spaghetti for dinner basically everyday. carbs <33333333333333
I think there are lots of grocery stores not owned by rich hypocrites that you can go to……
Shouldn't you be opposed to large chain stores anyway, Mr. Pinko, hmmmm????
[where's my comment????? grrrrrrrr]
We don’t have a Whole Foods here, so I’ve never been there before.
I will continue not shopping at Whole Foods d ^__^ b
I’m sure there are lots of grocery stores not owned by rich hypocrites that you can shop at…
Shouldn’t you be opposed to large chain stores anyway, Mr. Pinko, hmmmmmm?
There’s an Indian takeout place close to my school and that’s in rural Virginia, I know there’s got to be one in Brooklyn. You don’t need Whole Food’s Indian buffet!!!!
I think PinkoMag is being wack today.
Ben,
Seriously? Social security is not an entitlment program you nitwit. It was designed to be a savings plan. You get out of it what you pay into it. It has been bankrupted by the idiots in Washington who continually borrow money from it. Your buddy Bill Clinton used it like his own god damn piggy bank. As for the Bush tax cuts that you mentioned, I think you better revisit Econ101 and then go to the CBO’s website and get a freakin’ education because those tax cuts generated more revenue than the Clinton years did. Bush went wrong with spending and monetary policy among other things. I have no idea why I am even bothering to comment on an article with Stalin and Mao pictures in the header. Your blog is pure rubbish!
Sincerely,
The Grand Poobah Baba Ram Daas
Stalin isn’t in the header lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
“For example in the United States of America, social security is an entitlement program.[2]”
Bill Clinton was never my buddy. Also your buddy George Bush was about to put Social Security on the stock market – how would that have worked out?
nitwit.
For what it’s worth, I’m in a Facebook war with a friend of a friend over this; he posted a piece about it … feel free to give a read and agree, or disagree, etc:
http://www.theheartisanorganthatpumpblood.com/?p=645
I think if you don’t agree with a head of a corporation’s political views, it makes sense to not go there, because as a CEO they’re richer than they need to be…unlike someone at a farmer’s market or at a small grocery store.
Most of what he said, I was basically saying here….
“I think there are lots of grocery stores not owned by rich hypocrites that you can go to……
Shouldn’t you be opposed to large chain stores anyway, Mr. Pinko, hmmmm????”
and when I said you could go to an Indian takeout place instead.
I also hate large grocery stores like Whole Foods…
bring back the small specialty stores, plz
I guess I could have made this post MUCH shorter:
WOW. Whole Foods is run by a Republican who parrots Republican talking points. I don’t want to make a donation to the RNC or a right-wing health scare front group. I guess I shouldn’t shop there. Dot com.
Yes, that would be summary…
but I understand the post, it’s ok bb.
if you usually shopped at Bob’s Groceries and Bob kicked your cat, you wouldn’t go there anymore, would you?
So I think it is reasonable to stop going to Whole Foods if the CEO very publicly expresses political views that you do not agree with (and blog about). Especially since has power as a rich head of a corporation.
Also Baba Ram Daas? That’s Lenin. That’s Lenin and if you google “entitlement program” social security is the second thing that comes up.
guh
maybe you should make the “entitlement” in the sentence a link to something that explains what it is.
I didn’t know what you meant by it either :X
but I knew you wouldn’t consider social security unnecessary.
Done! You’re the best!
I feel compelled to chip in… just a bit. Although the NHS is not a panacea, it certainly is not the collective of witch-doctors that the GOP seems to be presenting it as. The vast majority of care that I have received in the five years I have been in Britain has been excellent and the ‘genuine Britons’ that Fox news has paraded on TV, like Daniel Hannan are ultra-conservative, have their own interests at heart, and tend to get kicked out of their own party. If they lived stateside, they would not be among the 40 some odd million without insurance. I know that generally Pinko readers don’t need reminders of these facts, but Marina Hyde wrote an excellent editorial in today’s Guardian about this issue. My own luddite skills don’t allow me to provide a convenient link, but go to guardian.co.uk and I’m sure you’ll find it.
You don’t agree with someone, so you trash them like this? You might not believe that you are an angry person inside, but you words and tone sure paint that picture. What makes you an expert on the bill? This will cost money– a lot. You are talking about providing insurance to illegal immigrants in this bill–millions of them. Not everyone agrees with that. But, you feel it’s right to force this on everyone. I think illegal immigrants should have to serve in the military prior to becoming eligible for any benefits–health insurance, food stamps, housing vouchers, or anything else. But, I’m not trying to force that view on anyone through a health care bill. Nor, am I trying to trying to make abortion’s illegal through this health care bill. But, this health care bill would REQUIRE EVERY health care plan–government and private–to fund abortions, including partial term/late stage abortions. There has been absolutely no compromise on this bill. It’s all one way and the President and the Speaker of the House have tried to jam a 1,000 page mandate down people’s throats in less than 90 days– a bill that I’m betting few members of Congress have read cover to cover. Let’s meet at the table to discuss health care, but let’s also leave the politics on the side and meet to solve the real problems, not to advance personal and political agendas.
Well, that’s absolutely and completely untrue about illegal immigrants receiving care form the bill, and it’s also absolutely untrue about the bill requiring every health care plan to fund abortions. I’ll find links and send them your way, but I can tell you that those two things are completely, totally and 100% untrue.
On immigration:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/13/cnn-truth-squad-will-new-health-bill-cover-illegal-immigrants/
on abortion:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/07/abortion-and-health-care-reform-bill/
And lastly: I am angry about the health care reform debate, and the way in which Republicans and Centrist Democrats have worked to kill real reform. I believe it is a crisis, and that it needs to be addressed, so yes I’m angry. I’m not an “angry person inside,” but I’m angry about health care right now.
As for your criticisms of the bill specifically – abortion and immigration – as I said those are untrue.
As for the bill itself, I don’t think it’s a great bill. We could do a lot better, and the Obama administration is making lots of compromises. I’m less angry at Mackey for his disagreement over this bill than I am angry at his clear statement of values – that health care is not a right, that it’s not a moral obligation, and that maybe everyone doesn’t deserve to have it. I am also angry with him for his dishonesty about the bill. So it’s not that I’m “trashing” him over this bill; I’m upset that he’s injecting a not-truthful position into the debate, and one that I find objectionable.
You are right that the bill is trying to be pushed through too fast, and that it’s awkward how quickly we’re trying to debate the whole thing. That said, I think it’s very naive to say … lets leave politics aside. It’s too late. The Republicans have been strategizing for months to kill this bill and wound the president politically; they aren’t offering solutions and have talked about this as the President’s “Waterloo.”
In this case, delay = no reform, and we desperately need reform. Politics are driving this debate, and this company that I used to respect has cast its lot with untruthful conservatives, and so I won’t support them.
I do hope you’re seeing these comments, so you know that the points about abortion and immigration are not accurate.
You need to get your facts straight before you go blabbing on–Mackey’s politics are not “deeply republican” but rather libertarian. The general libertarian position is one of minimal government both fiscally and socially, which are common to both republican and democratic ideals.
Besides the general silliness of such a boycott (I’m so sure Mackey, and not the thousands of employees will feel the brunt, if it has any effect at all), the general attitude of “you disagree with me, so I’m going to take my ball and go home” is just childish. Grow up.
Well, first, he’s donated money to Republicans, which I should have noted, and deregulation of various industries was a core tenant of the Bush Administration policy. The plan he proposes very closely parallels the Republican alternative on the table. So while I imagine you’re a Libertarian and want to claim him for yourself (and he may well be …) I based my view that his politics are “deeply Republican” on three facts:
1 – He is parroting Republican talking points on health care, claiming an imminent Government takeover of health care.
2 – His solution mirrors the Republican solution.
3 – He is, and has, been a vocal supporter of Republicans.
Not babbling.
Whatever he is, he is absolutely trotting out the list of obfuscations that the right is pushing now about healthcare. So libertarian or Republican, he is using the current GOP playbook to make his case against reform.
Also, when a business is doing something you deeply object to, how is it childish to stop shopping there. I have other good choices. You can shop wherever you want; I don’t think I should give Mackey anymore money so he can use it to support candidates and causes I disagree with.
[...] Foods, for working to deny millions of Americans access to quality healthcare and for walking me out of that store that time because I ate too many [...]
the term “Entitlement” or “entitlement program” is an established legal term that refers to a Constitutionally recognized “property interest” (in a governmental program) to which a program recipient is afforded pre-deprivation “due process” protection. Social security benefits (both supplemental security income for the disabled under Title XVI of the social security act and social security disability income under title II of the same) are considered entitlements. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and its progeny.
I don’t really have much to say politically, I was just excited to see a pinkomag writer quoted in the nytimes today.
Please explain from your link:
“…While there are several versions of the health care plan floating around Congress, and it seems that full abortion coverage would be permitted in the government-sponsored program, we didn’t see anything in them that would put taxpayers on the hook for subsidizing abortions. In fact, we found an amendment in a key version of the House plan that specifically seeks to ensure that federal funds are not used to subsidize abortion coverage. And so we ruled that claim False….”
If abortions “are permitted in the government-sponsored (and paid) plan…” then tax payers are subsidizing abortions. Just where do you believe the start up money, operating capital, money to fund operating deficits, etc. would be coming from in a “government-sponsored program” ????? Can you show that the amendment passed the House? My understanding is that an amendment to remove abortion came up for vote in the middle of the night and lost by one vote.
Sure – thanks for following up.
There have been some efforts, which you allude to, to BAN abortion within the plan. That is, the service providers who were service providers in the public plan would not be allowed to ever perform abortions. So if I’m a doctor and my patient is covered by the government-sponsored plan – lets call it Obamacare – I wouldn’t be allowed to perform that medical procedure on any patient who was coming to me under Obamacare coverage. That was the amendment to remove abortion – it was an effort to restrict doctors who see patients covered by “Obamacare” from performing a range of procedures.
The current plan allows those doctors to perform that procedure, but it is a completely out of pocket expense. I would have to pay for the entire thing myself. The doctor could do it, but all the costs are mine. That’s how it works right now with many private insurers – Kaiser, who I had in California – was one, and I believe the Veteran’s Administration is the another.
So essentially it’s treated under the proposed plan just like any procedure that’s deemed non-essential and completely out of pocket. This is a crass comparison, but I had a voluntary, somewhat cosmetic dental procedure last month and it was NOT covered by insurance – I paid the whole thing. But my doctor was allowed to do it, if I paid. And if something happened in surgery (he slipped and cut my chest open, whatever) that would be covered by catastrophic insurance.
Does that make sense? Nobody, under the plan, would have a single cent of their abortion paid for by taxpayers or the Government. That’s “subsidized,” i.e. “without insurance it’s $100, with ObamaCare it’s only $50.” It’s nothing like that. The rule you mention in the second paragraph prohibits it.
That’s why so many people go to abortion clinics instead of their own doctors – because most doctors know how to do the procedure, and can, but they either don’t or it isn’t covered. Going to a clinic is often more affordable than paying your primary care provider.
So again, Doctors aren’t BANNED from doing it. Rather, patients have to foot the whole bill.
Does that make sense? Now maybe it’s objectionable to you that a Doctor in the Veterans Administration, or who sees a patient under “Obamacare” is allowed to perform the procedure at all. But it’s consistent with the current law of the land – it’s perfectly legal for Doctors to perform abortions. What the congress has ensured with this bill is that it’s an out of pocket expense that is not in any way subsidized by the Government.
as a followup, many doctors see people under an array of plans. My primary care doctor might have patients coming in from ten different insurance companies. What the amendment in congress was trying to do was prevent him from even discussing abortion options with the patients coming to him under public plans, but permit him to do whatever the rules of the other private plans permitted – maybe, maybe not. That was seen by many people as overstepping the current law on abortion, and also putting Doctors in a situation where they are permitted to discuss certain things with some patients and not with others.
So now my doctor could discuss abortion with me under any plan, but I’d have to pay for it all myself. Again, it’s the same way Veteran’s healthcare and medicaid have been handled for years.
[...] FOODS: I gave my side. Here is the other perspective from our friend Waylon Lewis at Elephant Journal on why he’s [...]
Employee Free Choice Act? Who needs it?! Mackey offers http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/careers/benefits_us.php People LOVE working at Whole Foods! The place would not be run so well if a capitalist weren’t in charge of it. He’s not right-winged. He’s a libertarian!
You know, liberals cry and carry on about corporations not giving them what the People want. Well, finally a major grocery store is listening and pandering to them, and all they do is boycott!
read more at http://www.formercitizen.com
Assuming that the boycott of a bunch of gaunt, freakish vegans did gain some traction – ignoring the fact that they can’t organize themselves out of their own body odor – who do you think would actually suffer?
Will the billionaire CEO be clipping coupons, or will the rank and file stockers and checkers get laid off and lose the fantastic health care that they get as part of their jobs?
You people are the very picture of ignorance. It’s so easy to bitch and whine in a country that has everything unloaded from a truck 3 times a day. God forbid you ever have to go live in one of the socialist countries you hold so dear or the destitute countries that you seek to “save” or “free.”
President Obama told liberal clergy that those who claim his health care plan will provide taxpayer funding for abortions are “bearing false witness.” But it’s the president who is not being truthful with the American people.
The Capps Amendment, passed by Democrats in the Energy and Commerce Committee at the end of July, specifically says that the “public health insurance option shall provide coverage for (abortion) services,” and directs the “Commissioner” to “assure” that every American will have access “to at least one … plan that provides coverage of (abortion) services.”
California Democrat Zoe Lofgren admitted in a town hall meeting this month that “abortion will be covered by one or more of the health care plans available to Americans.”
Even the Associated Press wrote that ObamaCare “would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions.”
Hi again -
I realize this all is very confusing, and who knows if we’ll even have a public option.
First, you’re conflating “cover” and “pay for.” Yes, it would “allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions.” Of course it would. Private insurers do to. The reason for that is pretty simple: Abortion is a legal medical procedure in the United States of America, and it’s part of the health care system. You know that right? I don’t mean to be condescending, but abortion IS a legal right in our country. A Democrat, pledging support for abortion rights, was legally elected President by a majority of the people. I’m just restating this because so many of the arguments around “does healthcare cover abortion,” mine included, are treating abortion like it’s some illegal secret thing that the government is trying to sneak in to the health care plan. It’s not.
Abortion is a fully-legal, medical right in America. So of course any health care plan should and would be allowed to cover it.
The issue I think you’re getting at is whether you, as a taxpayer, would be PAYING for it. Would you, chrismccur, be funding my friend “Cindy’s” public health care option abortion? The answer, largely, is no. To the substance of your comment:
1. The Capps Amendment has been … amended (Section 122 of the bill) to prohibit the HHS Secretary or a Health Benefits Advisory Committee from requiring a health plan to include abortion coverage in order to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.
2. Sections 203 (SEGREGATION OF FUNDS) and 241(c) (PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE) ensure no public money will be spent on abortion.
Does that make sense? So yes, abortion will be allowed under a public and private health care option. It should be – it’s the law that it’s legal. But it wouldn’t be PAID FOR by public funds. “Cindy” would have to pay for it herself.
Here’s a link:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/26/the-abortion-distortion-setting-the-recordand-john-boehnerstraight-capps-amendment
That said, there are some arguments that I’m not entirely correct, and that you have some cause for concern. The issue has been raised that there are loopholes, bookkeeping tricks and sleight of hand that could allow INDIRECT subsidy of abortion. So your taxpayer money could go through a couple of hoops and wind it’s way to Cindy’s abortion. That could, technically, be true. Here is the analysis of the Wall Street Journal – a conservative, largely pro-life paper – and you should read every word of it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374873797534360.html
Here is the final judgement of the analyst from WSJ:
The bottom line: The Capps amendment prohibits direct taxpayer subsidy of abortion in these plans, and allows indirect subsidy. That merely leads to the highly subjective question: Is it indirect enough? My view: If the Capps amendment is off, it’s by a matter of inches or feet, not miles. So when pro-life forces claim that, as a result of the “affordability credits,” taxpayers are paying for abortion, they’re being hyperbolic at best, deceptive at worst.
So yes, one source I gave you is a pro-abortion rights group, but the other certainly isn’t. Additionally, a number of people argue that the public option “funds” abortion because abortion would be paid for IN THE CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST. Now, if you think that abortion shouldn’t be covered even in those cases, you’re probably reading the wrong blog and I don’t imagine there are any instances where you would support the health care plan. And you should know that if you are currently on medicare, on veterans assistance, or on almost any single private healthcare plan in the entire country, those all cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. I believe there are a handful of Catholic Church/Charity plans that don’t, which I think is inhumane and terrible.
But the bottom line is that no, the public option and healthcare reform would never DIRECTLY fund abortion, and in all likelihood never indirectly fund it either, though some loopholes could exist.
This is a case where people like to say Obama is a closet radical, but friends of mine are despondent because his closest religious advisors all oppose funding abortion coverage – he won’t do it or defend it. He is no radical, and if this is your reason for opposing healthcare reform I think that’s a shame – a lot of lives will be saved and improved by expanding healthcare coverage. I mean really – nothing beats pro-life opposition to universal health care. It just makes my head spin.
I assume, of course, that if you don’t want these plans to fund abortion that you’re fully supportive of them covering contraception in the prescription drug benefits?
[...] politics veers towards elitism, or at least luxury. Mine certainly does – I’ve been blogging lately about my Whole Foods boycott, and before that I think I wrote something about organic cheese. But there is, of course, a much [...]
[...] veers towards elitism, or at least luxury. Mine certainly does – I’ve been blogging lately about my Whole Foods boycott, and before that I think I wrote something about organic [...]
i love whole foods and will shop there until the day i die. Which may be sooner rather than later if the public option gets passed!
[...] now all my liberal friends are all up in a twitter on facebook about the revelation that Whole Foods doesn’t support unions and government sponsored health insurance. For one, I find it wonderfully [...]
[...] Why I’m Done with Whole Foods. I’m glad to say that I’ve been pretty much vindicated here. It’s been 5 months [...]
body odor is nasty that is why i always take a bath twice a day.`~”