Assured

Mucus Membranes Yes - I have taken zinc lozenges and they do seem to work. But when they ran out, I didn't bother to buy any more. I have just found it more expedient to get plenty of vitamin C and to remember to wash my hands before putting them next to any mucus membranes (eyes, nose or mouth, ears as well as some other places - link is above). That means washing your hands both before and after visiting the restroom. The link I provided above says that vitamin C doesn't prevent colds, and I have found that to be true. But if you get plenty of vitamin C, you will get something that is so mild that you will barely notice that you have it, and it doesn't last very long. If you do those two things, go ahead and take a zinc lozenge if you want. What can it hurt?

Lol, you need the sound! There is discussion about different kinds of meat you can use, to be sure, but that was not what the Seal and Kangaroo were about. ...Thanks for watching! LOL! I'll have to watch it again with the sound. It will be getting colder and it's a good time for soup.

I had to watch it without the sound. I also had to stop watching, when I saw the seal and the kangaroo - LOL! I think you're saying that you can put whatever protein into the soup that you would like, but that came out of left field. LOL!

Vitamin C Data Sheet Are you getting enough Vitamin C? I take precautions when I expect to be in a crowd (like at church), and drink orange juice or eat a couple of oranges the day before, even if I neglected to do so that week. That helps more than you might think. I don't bother to take a Vitamin C supplement, because food absorbs faster. I've attached a link with some other food sources of Vitamin C.

This is an absolute leftist falsehood!!! So how much is their fair share of the deficit that Obamination created and only democrats wanted? So the bottom 50% of people pay only 2% of the total federal bill but you want to focus on the ones that pay the most already? Drinking leftist kool aid has poisoned your mind against the truth and against what is right. Everyone, I do mean everyone should pay something in federal taxes even it is just 10 dollars. At least then everyone has something in the game. But to focus on the most successful among us to make them pay for foolishness that came straight from Marxist ideology when most folks did not want it in the first place is a bogus point of view with no credibility behind it what so ever. I'll tell you what the problem is, it is the many like you who are so eager to throw away the truth and to hold on to a lie and then repeat it as if it were the truth but in fact it is a lie. So let e ask you something, how much is their fair share? Don't you realize that these people provide jobs for the rest of us? Why are you so intent on punishing success? Don't you realize that punishing success means you get less of it? Don't you know when that happens everyone suffers? Can't you see that the problem is a runaway government with a major spending problem and not a income problem? I think that you and the obamabots need to pay for this deficit since you all wanted it in the first place. So own it and pay for it and leave the rest of us alone. Thanks Poor is poor, though. What would you rather see -- tax relief for poor people, or increased expenditures in General Relief and Food Stamps? Isn't it better to let them keep their money, than take it from them and then spend more to feed them because they (and their children) are starving? I mean, it just goes back to the income disparity. For sure, we need to keep public education fully funded, so that more people don't fall into this trap.

OWS has nothing to do with Bank of America. Bank of America is not considering back-tracking on their monthly fee because a group of spoiled malcontents are squatting in a NYC park. Bank of America is a banking juggernaut heading for a reef at full steam, and as they stand right now, as a company, they deserve to have their entire keel ripped out. They are going to fail. It is only a question of when and they seem to be the only ones oblivious to it. They have created a toxic public relations perception through their alienation of their customer base through mis-handled loans, foreclosures, credit card accounts, safe deposit box break-ins, etc. that they will never be able to reverse. They can take TARP money till the cows come home. Warren Buffet can throw money at BoA until his pockets are empty. None of that will bring back the customers they have lost through their own actions, or the potential customers they are losing daily through word of mouth. A company without customers fails, and BoA is losing customers daily, and they won't be coming back. Because when BoA burns you, they burn you good. They are having second thoughts because the hue and cry from the customers they have left was too loud to ignore for a company that is hanging over the edge of a cliff by their fingernails. OWS had nothing to do with it. The LA Times mentioned the coincidence of B of A's decision happening while these protests are being observed and discussed. I think it is a valid observation, and is open to either being either interpreted or disregarded as a mere coincidence. Of course it could be simply a coincidence. I am glad they made that decision, regardless of why. The banks do need to demonstrate that they are listening to their customers (not just their shareholders), and everyone will be better off when they do.

Sorry folks - all of the above discussion probably could've taken place in a PM. If anyone has any question that I failed to address, please PM me. I didn't want to be rude, I am just trying not to derail this thread. Now, where were we? Occupy Wall Street, right?

Just curious... "will be"??? We have had many liberals come and go from this forum and their message doesn't seem to change much. Should we be expecting a new influx, future tense noted? I wondered about that too. Assured: As for the admonishment to deal with them in PM . . . I don't think so. I will deal with liberal points of view, just as I always have, right here on the board, directly. No PM necessary. Liberal points of view and their inherent hypocrisy and flawed logic never stand up to the light when examined closely. Look at the OWS being discussed here. Your so-called "grass roots" protesters (which are not grass roots at all) are, on the one hand, wanting a handout for everything. Free education, no Capitalism, replace it with Socialism, round everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Basically, no one will have to work for anything, which is always the liberals Big Dream. But when so-called derelicts and the homeless want to come in and help themselves to the OWS protester's food, being provided to them free of charge by others, suddenly, they don't like that entitlement socialist system so much. Someone else is freeloading off their free goodies. Hypocrisy, stand up and be recognized! They want a handout, but don't want the homeless to get one. The homeless don't have much choice in the matter, but the OWS protesters certainly do. This stuff isn't rocket science. OWS'ers are supposed to be priviledged, but the homeless need to get scarce. Got it. We disagree politically. Don't try to read anyting spiritual into it. Plenty of Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage (don't forget about the Log Cabin Republicans). It is not the morally superior political position. Someone else tried to tell us that politics is politics, and religion is religion. I think we need to stop pointing fingers at the other side of the aisle and making them wrong. If I were to imply that Republicans are sinners who are under God's wrath, no one would stand for it. This should not be said about Democrats either. THUD. What? Everything we do has spiritual consequences... you cannot partition your life into spiritual and non-spiritual components. Perhaps this is the problem. Your faith SHOULD permeate your politics! There really is a morally superior political position and that is one in which God is glorified - let's not pretend that calling bad good is morally superior! I agree. It was a roundabout way of saying that Democrats aren't automatically evil just because you disagree with them politically. I don't feel obligated to vote for an anti-abortion President who will hurt me and hurt my Grandma and Pa. It is my decision to prayerfully make, and I have made it expecting the Supreme Court to take this up. You will note that there is already a Republican majority in the Court. Get it to them NOW, and something may happen. But don't tell me to vote for a Republican just to get rid of abortion (not you, Candice - LOL!). I don't think it is necessary, and I don't want to do it.

???? What does that have to do with anything, especially OWS? Abortion is a sin and you support abortion in the form of our current administration and President, because you support both. You are, politically, a liberal, so you support abortion even though you claim not to. If you walk down the street and see a woman being raped and do nothing, say nothing to stop it or stand against it, you have just become a supporter of rape. So you support the murder of unborn children. Abortion does not enjoy bipartisan support and never has. Conservatives, by and large, are against abortion. George Soros is a criminal. He is a rich thug who attempts to destabilize currencies and countries with his "contributions." He is not some benevolent philanthropist. Supporting liberal causes means nothing. What would those causes be? Because it always astounds me that liberals, especially the Hollywood type would champion so hard for the rights of animals and saving the environment, but at the same time, could care less about innocent unborn children being murdered by the 100's daily. They have no problem with that. They don't want people to be poor, on the one hand, but don't care if they are killed on the other, as long as they have not left the womb yet. Liberalism is filled with hypocrisy. Godly priorities mean that we focus on witnessing to the unsaved, rather than preventing them from committing the sin of abortion, but leaving them in ignorance to commit fornication and to lie, cheat and steal. These women will still go to hell, even if they can't have abortions. That's a problem. We need to get the Gospel message to people, and then they will be saved AND they won't have abortions! Also, at least you finally understand that liberals aren't necessarily motivated by envy, since Mr. Soros, Mr. Spielberg, and many others are wealthy. But I keep having to repeat this -- pro-choice is not an exclusively liberal position. We need to hate the sin and love the sinner, which means we need to be careful how we speak of these people. But depend on it, some of them are Republicans. It wouldn't have been made legal in Roe v Wade if conservative judges hadn't been involved in the decision. There are spiritual realities at play here, that are going to affect people's positions on that. So it is appropriate to grieve over this but it is not appropriate to yield to the temptation to speak hatefully of these people. We should fear God, thank Him for saving us, and then pray for these people. Of course we should also vote our consciences. There is nothing wrong with that. I just want people who are pro-abortion who are reading this to understand that we love them and we want God to save them, and that we're praying for them.

Just curious... "will be"??? We have had many liberals come and go from this forum and their message doesn't seem to change much. Should we be expecting a new influx, future tense noted? I wondered about that too. Assured: As for the admonishment to deal with them in PM . . . I don't think so. I will deal with liberal points of view, just as I always have, right here on the board, directly. No PM necessary. Liberal points of view and their inherent hypocrisy and flawed logic never stand up to the light when examined closely. Look at the OWS being discussed here. Your so-called "grass roots" protesters (which are not grass roots at all) are, on the one hand, wanting a handout for everything. Free education, no Capitalism, replace it with Socialism, round everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Basically, no one will have to work for anything, which is always the liberals Big Dream. But when so-called derelicts and the homeless want to come in and help themselves to the OWS protester's food, being provided to them free of charge by others, suddenly, they don't like that entitlement socialist system so much. Someone else is freeloading off their free goodies. Hypocrisy, stand up and be recognized! They want a handout, but don't want the homeless to get one. The homeless don't have much choice in the matter, but the OWS protesters certainly do. This stuff isn't rocket science. OWS'ers are supposed to be priviledged, but the homeless need to get scarce. Got it. We disagree politically. Don't try to read anyting spiritual into it. Plenty of Republicans are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage (don't forget about the Log Cabin Republicans). It is not the morally superior political position. Someone else tried to tell us that politics is politics, and religion is religion. I think we need to stop pointing fingers at the other side of the aisle and making them wrong. If I were to imply that Republicans are sinners who are under God's wrath, no one would stand for it. This should not be said about Democrats either.

As has already been said by others, one cannot be a committed Christian in a strong daily relationship with Christ and still be a liberal, because Christ and Christian values are forced to take a back seat in that scenario. Christ does not take the back seat well. Liberals have no fixed values, especially morally-speaking. In fact, liberalism is all about breaking down just about every moral value which already exists and catering to every immoral behavior imaginable. Whatever makes a quick buck or garners votes is the only two things a liberal cares about. Liberal values can and do change daily upon their own whims and the whims of society. You are seemingly in favor of abortion and you support a president who is a known liar, and a president who condones sin in the form of abortion and gay rights, so you are an example of a liberal who's so-called Christian beliefs have been sacrificed in support of a political official whom you should not be supporting, where you to actually adhere to the value system within the Bible. Christian Lite. Jim Wallis teaches a Social Doctrine. Jim Wallis teaches forced re-distribution of wealth, a gospel decidedly not found within the pages of the Bible, and saying that Sojourners is "christian" carries about as much weight as saying that Mel White and Soulforce are "christian." Anyone can call themselves a Christian but one has to believe in and follow a very specific set of values to actually be a Christian. Just saying the word doesn't get it. Jim Wallis and Sojourners do not understand the plain and simple gospel message at all. They twist it, pervert it, re-write it to fit their own social agenda. Jim Wallis supports abortion no matter what he says in public and he supports gay rights. He has taken money from known criminals like George Soros to keep Sojourners afloat, so three strikes and he is out. You cannot embrace liberalism, openly condone sin and still function as a Christian and anyone who believes that they can has a couple problems. One, they are severely deluded, and two, they will have to explain to Christ Himself how they could adopt such an attitude when they clearly should have known better. Ok, look - I am not a member of Sojournors. I attend a conservative, evangelical church. I do not believe in abortion or gay marriage. I'm sorry, but you now know enough to stop saying such things. I could easily say, "Conservatives are selfish and only care about lowering their own taxes and throwing old women out into the street!" and it would be an evil, loathsome thing to say, wouldn't it? So please stop saying such things. You will be meeting liberals on these boards, and you will have an opportunity to PM them and chat with them and ask them all sorts of things. All I ask is that you check things out first.

The President has a personal advisor on all things Religion and his name is Jim Wallis. Jim Wallis is preaching a Gospel of Social Justice and Collective Salvation. The same Gospel that Reverand Wright did. Not surprisingly. A man whos sit's in a hateful church for 20 years and has his children baptized by a hateful small minded man like Wright has some very serious issues. Especially, when he claims that he didn't hear what the man preached blatantly for 20 years. Meanwhile, the Gospel that both Reverand Wright and Reverand Wallis espouse are both heretical. There is no basis for their Gospel in the Bible. We are admonished to be Wise. You haven't yet answered my question. Do you adhere to a Gospel of Collective Salvation? Do you follow the teachings of Jim Wallis? This is no time to dodge a question like this because we are not to receive someone who preaches another Gospel. peace, dave I appreciate your concern. I was in fact wondering, "What on Earth is wrong with our President, that so many people online and in my church disapprove of him?" So I am glad that somebody gave me a response other than, "Don't you already know what the problem is?" I haven't looked up or Googled the people who visit the President at the White House, so I will defer to those who have. But I stand by what I said earlier, that the President professes Christ. If he is truly saved, then if we pray for him, God will reveal any errors in what he is being taught. Few of us have not been exposed to error at some time in our spiritual lives. It has always taken those who love us enough to pray for us, and even to tell us, when they discover it. BTW I do not approve of the people who appear at events with Rick Perry, either, but that doesn't disqualify him from belonging to Christ, if in fact he does. But the time may come when we will elect a Jewish President, or a Mormon one. What then? I always look at general qualifications, because he will be President not Pastor. Edited: What do you all think of Herman Cain's pastor? That's alright - I'll post this question in the Herman Cain thread.

Oh vey! Assured - surely you jest??? I don't understand what the problem is. The only difference between this President and President Clinton, is that he does not cheat on his wife with interns, and that he is African American. His ethnicity is not an issue for me, and his morality is an improvement.

Butero you are asking a good question, and I will answer it. I am grieved by what I hear the other members of my church say about our President, and political matters generally. I decided to start going online to discuss politics anonymously because there is such a divide in the Christian community right now. (I was at another forum, which recently closed.) I seek to understand and be understood, but I cannot do this IRL because there is such a hostility right now. I can only do this online. But trusting God does not mean we are supposed to be passive. We are just not supposed to get too worked up, because He will achieve His purposes, because He is able.

Democratic Presidents continue to appoint judges they know will uphold Roe vs Wade. If you believe God is sovereign and therefore we need to trust him regardless of who the President is, why did you come here attacking Herman Cain? Why are you lifting up Obama and defending Democrats? Why are you attacking Republican members of Congress. After all, God is sovereign, so if Republicans are in Congress, it is because he placed them there. If you don't like their policies, why worry about it? God must know what he is doing? As for birth control, it was just that issue that led to abortion being declared a Constitutional right. There were some states with laws prohibiting birth control. The Supreme Court made up a phony right to privacy to overturn those state laws. They used the same precident to declare all laws against abortion to be unconstitutional. We have had birth control all along, yet we still have 1.5 to 2 million abortions each year since Roe vs Wade. On this matter I will agree with you. Nobody comes to power unless God allows it. That was the case with every President in my lifetime. Not every President is there because they are the best people. Some are there because God is punishing the nation. I believe that is the case with Obama. We have sinned, so he put someone in place that is evil. We are in a free country, so in order to have someone come to power, we vote. God therefore causes some to be conservatives and some to be liberals, and we fight it out. He uses our arguments to influence the independents, and they decide the elections. The death of unborn babies is a punishment on this nation. We are losing our offspring. As a Christian, and an ambassador for God's Kingdom, it is my responsibilitly to support his positions in this world. It is my responsibility to care where someone stands on issues like the destruction of innocent human life. I respect your difference of opinion regarding abortion. I would just request that you not make Democrats wrong for supposedly supporting abortion, when there are Republicans who support it, too. Also, please remember that there are quite a few wealthy liberals - it isn't a class-envy dynamic at all. There are just certain people, regardless of their socioeconomic status, who are committed to Progressive principles. I come from a relatively affluent family, as I said (and I am myself a member of the middle class), and am a former Republican. But I was always a moderate and I remain committed to Progressive principles (such as a progressive income tax code). Since those things no longer have bi-partisan support, I have found it necessary to switch sides. I just hope that Republicans move more toward the middle before they lose their majority. But they might have to lose their majority in order to get the message. Obviously I don't agree with you that President Obama has been elected President only because God is angry with us. The next President might be Jewish or Muslim or Mormon -- may I suggest that this would require even more of an adjustment. All joking aside, President Obama attended church until people voiced objections against what his (Christian) pastor was saying. Now he has pastors visit him at the White House for private Bible study. I don't think God would punish us by giving us someone who prays and reads the Bible. Seriously. Also don't forget, Progressives elected him President, and Progressives are out there now, protesting. The GOP needs to try to win these people over by listening to them, if they want to regain the White House. So far President Obama is the only one listening to them.

I think a Democratic President would be just as qualified to appoint fair and competent Supreme Court justices as a Republican President. God is sovereign, and we need to trust Him whether we have a Democratic or a Republican President. Don't forget - an unsaved women who isn't able to get an abortion will go to hell just as quickly as one who does. IMO we should focus on presenting the Gospel to everyone we have influence over, and on praying for them. We should also pray that God's will be done with regard to abortion's legality in this country, and believe me, that prayer will be heard. I will be praying for this right along with you. I don't think it depends on whether the President is Democratic or Republican, because believe it or not legal abortion has enjoyed bipartisan support up until now. I think birth control is changing the temperature on that, though. Women who use birth control do not need abortions, so there is now an opening to end it. Also regarding the envy issue of supposed conservative "elites," I will copy-paste what I said about that the last time you said that: I don't think you realize how inconsistent this is with what everyone knows, which is that George Soros is a major liberal campaign contributor and he is one of the richest men in the world. Warren Buffet is another famous one. Countless people in the entertainment industry support liberal causes, including Steven Spielberg. I also come from a relatively affluent home. When I read this, I laughed out loud - LOL!

Can you say I-R-O-N-Y? The Reverand Patrcik J Mahoney got it right! That's exactly what Jim wallis and the Sojourners are doing in their full unconditional support of OWS and it's anti-semitism on display. SHAME on them and Shame on anyone who supports them. 1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. I am not aware of that, and furthermore I am sure that there are people within their organization who disagree with abortion. But there are Republicans who are pro-choice, so I fail to see why support of abortion delegitimizes either the right or the left. I simply disregard it, because IMO ultimately it is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

I don't think you realize how inconsistent this is with what everyone knows, which is that George Soros is a major liberal campaign contributor and he is one of the richest men in the world. Warren Buffet is another famous one. Countless people in the entertainment industry support liberal causes, including Steven Spielberg. I also come from a relatively affluent home. When I read this, I laughed out loud - LOL!

This is not community organizing. I don't see where you think that OWS is a community organized event. It is a spontaneous event. Liberalism as it is expressed TODAY is a problem. There was a time when "liberalism" was a fiscal position. You were liberal based on your economic philosophy. Liberalism, today, has become much more poisonous and anti-American, pro-communism, pro-socialism. It is all about entitlements, and selfishness. It is about legislating immoral lifestyles as if they were normal. Liberalism is about tearing down what is best about America. Liberalism = "I hate America." There are Christian liberals who don't like gay marriage and abortion. You just didn't know that. Please look into Sojourners (they are liberals and they are Christians), before you say things like that.

When corporations do this you leftists cry foul. However, this time it's okay. By the way, the largest ever malfunctioning and corrupt corporation is the U.S. Government. I think what really matters is that your agenda has been exposed Assured. Do you believe in Collective Salvation? I have no agenda, I assure you - LOL! I just disagree. I have not researched ACORN - I don't care. But liberals are allowed to do community organizing, just as conservatives are. I wasn't trying to make the Tea Party wrong -- I just don't trust the Koch brothers and ALEC, and they had gotten involved with it. Similarly, so far this OWS is grass roots. Believe me, once it isn't, I will know. IMO it is premature to say that there will be a problem. Liberalism is not a problem. This is America, and people are allowed to disagree. I think that is the whole point of the protest - to show legislators and corporations that there are people who disagree with the supposed conservative tone that is supposed to be the norm in this country. And I'll tell you something -- it is having an effect. I read in yesterday's LA Times that after seeing the OWS protests, Bank of America is rethinking their proposed $5 monthly fee for making purchases with their debit cards. They are thinking up more ways for customers to avoid the fee, because they see that their customers are not stupid and won't stand for it. Also, not to pick on Bank of America, the other banks that were considering the fee are putting it on hold now. I'll tell you what -- people don't have to know WHY they are protesting for this to have an effect. The banks and the legislators know what they have been doing. And believe me, they know what to stop doing.

ACORN re-organized and changed it's name. Same people, same stationary, same building, . . . . I don't see what the problem is. It's like someone poisoned someone, finds out they are still alive in the hospital, and says, "Darn it - they are still alive!" I don't think you realize how mean this sounds. Why wouldn't ACORN be allowed to exist? Liberal community organizing isn't immoral or illegal. But people are demonstrating here where I live, thousands of miles from New York on the other coast (I am in California). I doubt that the skeleton crew described by that Fox News article would have been responsible for it. People are deciding to do this on their own. Oh, and Candice mentioned that people are demonstrating in Australia (where she lives) and in fact all over the world. ACORN isn't responsible for that, either.

Opinion? A person's opinion versus clear evidence that it is, in fact, ACORN lackeys that are helping organize the OWS protests? Opinion doesn't mean much when you have the people in question themselves point-blank saying that they are behind it. Good grief, you have people gloating over it and fighting over being the ones who are behind it. So a person's 'opinion' counts for spit. I guess you are never going to actually deal with the subject of the OP. It isn't "people seeing the kind of policies being developed in concert with moneyed interests." You have a group of liberal whacks with a very clear-cut agenda who went around purposely gathering people here and there and encouraging them to go protest. Only in the beginning, they didn't even know what they were protesting. Just like the 60's. The hippies in the 60's never knew what they were against. They couldn't agree about anything. They didn't know what they wanted to get rid of, beyond this nebulous "Establishment" and they certainly had no plan as to what they would replace it with. Same thing going on here. They don't like Capitalism. They don't like Jews. Great. They obviously don't want to work either. They are vilifying the very system that is feeding their unproductive mouths every day. If you can't see the irony and hypocrisy in that, then you are not looking hard enough. ACORN no longer exists - haven't you all heard? They lost Congressional funding and folded. Where have you heard it was ACORN? Do you have a link to a hard news article, or is the piece you read this in an opinion piece like the one I linked? Because this ACORN stuff doesn't make sense to me. Edited: OK, I read your OP, and I see that it is a group of FORMER ACORN staffers, who are donating their time (they don't WORK for ACORN because it doesn't exist) to a private endeavor. That's like you or me going to the public library and reading to the children. Why Fox News is worrying about this and calling it ACORN (as though they wish to prevent these former staffers from doing anything at all with their own time!) sounds like bullying. They need to leave these people alone and let them do what they want with their own time. It's none of their business. Little League, the Public Library, Church Bazaars, all of these endeavors are done by unpaid volunteers and are none of Fox News' business.

American Legislative Exchange Council I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair. But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity. What does that have to do with ACORN's involvement with OWS? I provided a link above, to an opinion piece that I have just read -- it came in my email. It is entitled: "The study that shows why Occupy Wall Street struck a nerve" Quoting from it: The hard-right conservatives who dominate the Republican Party claim to despise the redistribution of wealth, but secretly they love it — as long as the process involves depriving the poor and middle class to benefit the rich, not the other way around. That is precisely what has been happening, as a jaw-dropping new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office demonstrates. Three decades of trickle-down economic theory, see-no-evil deregulation and tax-cutting fervor have led to massive redistribution... So I am not the only one who feels that past tax policies, and current proposed tax policies are fueling the fire. What does that have to do with ACORN's involvement and organiation of OWS? In E.J. Dionne's opinion it isn't ACORN - in his opinion (and I agree) it is people seeing the kinds of policies that are being developed in concert with moneyed interests. (The current and proposed tax codes are just one of several examples one could give.) Oh, and there is one more link I need to show you. The American Legislative Exchange Council (known as ALEC) is actually lawmakers and lobbyists writing laws to benefit campaign contributors. It's just a little too cozy for me. These lawmakers need to be put on notice that they are being watched. Voting for ALEC legislation needs to start being hazardous to their political careers.

Washington Post Opinion Piece I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policies being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair. But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity. What does that have to do with ACORN's involvement with OWS? I provided a link above, to an opinion piece that I have just read -- it came in my email. It is entitled: "The study that shows why Occupy Wall Street struck a nerve" Quoting from it: The hard-right conservatives who dominate the Republican Party claim to despise the redistribution of wealth, but secretly they love it — as long as the process involves depriving the poor and middle class to benefit the rich, not the other way around. That is precisely what has been happening, as a jaw-dropping new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office demonstrates. Three decades of trickle-down economic theory, see-no-evil deregulation and tax-cutting fervor have led to massive redistribution... So I am not the only one who feels that past tax policies, and current proposed tax policies are fueling the fire.

I am suggesting (you don't have to agree) that the taxation policy being proposed by candidates (Herman Cain) and members (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor) of the GOP present an attitude that is hostile to the middle and lower classes. Campaign money coming from corporations and wealthy individuals appears to have fueled proposed taxation policies that will skew the playing field even more. But it is already pretty bad, because labor is taxed much more heavily (25 or 35%) than investment (15%). That just isn't fair. But once again, you don't have to agree. Just pointing to something that people might protest about, because it is a true inequity. There is no such thing as "fair." I find it ironic when people today talk about taxes. It is like this country has forgotten that one of the things it was founded on was no taxation without representation and we have it all over the place. My taxes go to pay for things I don't support. Planned Parenthood. Welfare. Foreign aid. That is not "fair," but I don't get much choice in the matter. Business gets taxed more because they make more. There is nothing unfair about that. Your supposed inequity is no inequity at all. The OWS isn't about taxes. It isn't about Capitalism. It has not escaped a good many of us that when this whole charade began, you had a bunch of dis-infranchised losers milling around in a protest, but they didn't know what they were protesting or why. That didn't come till later when some people began asking questions and suddenly a list of demands appeared. They were not there in the beginning because the people who were behind this "movement," ACORN, Michael Moore, etc., just whipped up a bunch of useful idiots and wash-outs and got them to show up en masse and whine about how unfair America is, and yet they are squatting in a park and having their needs met while they do nothing. The only reason this movement exists is to foment civil unrest. The people camped out in the park getting 3 squares a day while they whine about how unfair life is like a bunch of 60's hippies don't realize that but the people behind it sure do. They may as well have just borrowed "Tune in, Turn on, Drop out" as their rallying cry. There is nothing new under the sun. I do think we should stop penalizing labor though, by taxing it at a higher rate than investment. People who work for a living pay up to 35% (soon to be 39%) of their earnings, but if they only live off their investments they pay just 15% and that's it. I would like to see a sliding scale on tax rates for capital gains, with 15% as the floor, instead of the flat 15%. But you're right - taxes often go toward things that we as individuals don't support. But wealthy people who don't have to work shouldn't be getting a free ride when it comes to being subject to an income tax that the rest of us have to pay. They don't pay an income tax at all! It's like paying an income tax is for suckers or something. This is why I am somewhat sympathetic toward this idea that there are inequities in the system. I would like to see them corrected.