ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

[Gerioke]

Either way you vote would be a candidate not worthy of God's endorsement. That's why it's important to endorse someone you know is upright. Who do you know who's upright. Only one in my books, and He doesn't need my vote.

5 years ago, the same people who run down the president now, would be the same people who said we should be blessing the president then. Politics just turns people into hypocrites

No. That is false. No one I know here who opposes the president today endorsed him when he was running. People with discernment have always known he was not what he claims to be and have always stated so quite plainly. The evidence that he is, in fact, not a Christian is so obvious a person does not even need that much discernment to pick it up. Plain Christian common sense tells you he, at best, has some very serious disconnects from the faith he sometimes claims to have. Of course what he claims to have faith in changes depends on what audience he is addressing. If he were a strong Christian with actual faith in Christ, the message would not alter at all. We are never told to support someone who is in clear opposition to Christ.

I was talking about the "conservative " response to the Bush bashers. There are many here who would argue that Good Ol' GWB had little in common with the average American Christian. Yet the die hard republicans stood by him like he was God's only ambassador demanding that we bless our president because he is God's anointed. How is it that Bush was ok but Obama is not?

[Matthitjah]

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.

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.

I'm not interested in that or politics right now.

I'm interested in your personal view because I'm concerned about your salavation.

Do you adhere to a Gospel of Collective Salvation?

Peace,

Dave

[nebula]

I am grieved by what I hear the other members of my church say about our President, and political matters generally.

Hi again, Assured.

Just for clarification, were you just as grieved by the hateful and spiteful words spoken against Bush when he was our president?

I seek to understand and be understood,

OK, then it would help if you answered questions about your faith and your expression of theology.

[nebula]

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.

It is interesting that the LA Times credits the OWS protest for this.

The Washington Post states this:

BofA has faced a backlash from customers, many of whom have stated they will look elsewhere to do their banking instead of paying the fee. As Sarah Halzack explained :

Bank of America got pummeled by investors and its customers Friday, a day after announcing that it would charge many debit card users a $5 monthly fee when they shop.

The troubled bank, already besieged by multibillion-dollar lawsuits and massive financial losses, saw its stock fall more than 2 percent in late-morning trading. The shares have plunged almost 44 percent for the quarter, the worst-performing in the Dow Jones industrial average by far. For the year, the stock is down 56 percent.

Now the bank faces a public relations backlash.

The debit card change has sparked fury on the Web and cable news channels. Consumers complained on message boards and in social media, vowing to take their business elsewhere.

Full report here

Nothing about OWS here.

And for the record:

The banks' decision to impose debit card fees is widely viewed as a response to the Durbin Amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Enacted in July, the provision reduces the fees banks can charge merchants for debit card purchases to 21 cents from 44 cents.

Source: CNN

Dodd and Frank are Democrats.

[nebula]

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!

My observation of Liberalism is that they want the government to care for the poor and needy; however, they themselves don't want to sacrifice their finances and affluence to help the poor and needy.

Unless it gives them a nice tax break.

Not saying all are like that, or that you are like that, but this tends to be the trend.

But do you want the government taking more out of your pocket to feed into the Welfare program?

[Assured]

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.

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.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Assured

[coelacanth]

But the richest 1% of the population wants a different tax scheme so that they can get out of paying their share of the deficit.

This is an absolute leftist falsehood!!!

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So how much is their fair share of the deficit that Obamination created and only democrats wanted?

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

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

[Assured]

But the richest 1% of the population wants a different tax scheme so that they can get out of paying their share of the deficit.

This is an absolute leftist falsehood!!!

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So how much is their fair share of the deficit that Obamination created and only democrats wanted?

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

But the richest 1% of the population wants a different tax scheme so that they can get out of paying their share of the deficit.

What is your source of authority for that claim?

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.

That evades the issue. The richest 1% already pay more than the bottom 50%. Yet you want to tax the top 1% more even though they are paying more. They can never pay enough to satisfy any requirement. the top1% are paying 37% and bottom 50% is paying only 2%. Why not ask the free loading lowest 50% to pay their fair share before strapping more taxes on the rich.

What you are advocating is socialism. Take more from the rich and give it to the poor. Do you honestly think if taxes are raised that poor people will suddenly get financial relief??? When has that EVER happened? No one has ever been taxed into prosperity in the history of mankind in ANY country, including the US. If the rich started paying more in taxes, the money would be spent on more liberal causes and NONE of the money would be redistributed to the poor. You are simply living a liberal la-la land.

What makes more sense is to allow the rich to spend their money on more jobs in the private sector and reduce unemplloyment so that we have a much larger tax base and more people paying taxes. But that would mean less need of the government to tell us what to buy and what to eat and the liberal dream of a leftist nanny state would be drowned in the ocean of fiscal discipline, rugged individualism and the pride of self-accomplishment.

[nebula]

Repeat:

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!

My observation of Liberalism is that they want the government to care for the poor and needy; however, they themselves don't want to sacrifice their finances and affluence to help the poor and needy.

Unless it gives them a nice tax break.

Not saying all are like that, or that you are like that, but this tends to be the trend.

But do you want the government taking more out of your pocket to feed into the Welfare program?