Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ben Swann - Obama and Romney -Is there really a difference?

Posted 8 years ago on July 5, 2012, 8:17 a.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

2 Comments

2 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by OccNoVi (415) 8 years ago

The betuadollar posting is a hoot. They can't stop lying.

Best bet to turn around congress is a landslide at the presidential level.

Maybe doable cuz Romney is actually a worse nominee than Palin and he ain't got a skirt to protect him from attacks:

Mitt Romney -- fatal accident at Beaulac revisited

http://foolmoon.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/337209/Mitt_Romney_fatal_accident_at_.html

Or here without the discussion:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/slandering-bishop-jean-felix-albert-marie-vilnet-f/

Funny stuff here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApCZR10Y.8osj3Og8G_xAPAjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20120703150130AAKLHrN

We know the other driver was Bishop Jean Vilnet from photographs and meeting him. They can't give up lying.

Right wingers... horrible shape. Lost....

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Hmm...

Contained within the Affordable Care Act is a provision to provide illegals with healthcare under Medicaid without income limit, while citizens and legal aliens are limited to of 133% of the Fed poverty line... Both of the two main tenets, or supporting pillars - the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion - were found to be unconstitutional, the latter by seven of the nine Justices, including - amazingly enough - Kagan...

In reference to "inactivity" under the Commerce Clause, Scalia, as always "spot on," eminently and precisely logical - "brilliant" - stated the following: "such a definition of market participants is unprecedented and were it to be a premise for the excessive of national power, it would have no principled limits." The Constitution exists solely for the purpose of limiting Federal power; to leave governance to the rule of their benevolence is the equivalent of conferring upon government the Divine Right of Kings.

Don't be fooled: the Act was pushed through Congress with a simple majority of 51 votes under a process known as "budget reconciliation" in violation of its own "Byrd Rules"; it would have destroyed all last remaining remnants of any concept of individual "right," and in eliminating the ability of the state to voluntarily "opt out," or resist coercive measures, conferred upon the Fed the power to usurp all State governance in instituting ANY program it so desired.

This was a massive power grab and its true intent was NOT to provide healthcare for our poor or to extend benefits to those formerly denied by the insurance company - these are but enticement - the true intent was to provide healthcare without limit to ALL illegal aliens supported through both increased insurance costs and Fed, State, and local taxes.

What is also particularly disturbing when we read Ginsburg, whose minority decision amounts in style and fashion to little more than a criminal defense with its attempts to spin the limit of law as it applies inept, inapt, and inexact analogy to prove that twist, is the overall authoritative tenor - individual and state compliance by command and demand.

The King is DEAD; Long Live the King!