Michael

It seems businessmen believe they can take revenge on the people because they did not get their way (for one time out of 1000) including those people who voted their way.

Have they forgotten that all of those they are taking revenge on with layoffs and surcharges are in fact CUSTOMERS? Do they really expect to stay in business that way?

Meanings change over time, and connotations often change faster. For example, 'egregious' at one time would be taken to mean 'noteworthy' or 'remarkable' (for good or bad). Now one hardly has to use the work 'mistake' or 'error' when using the adjective 'egregious'.

So my question, the noun "pundit". Was there a time when it meant something akin to distinguished learned person instead of sellout talking head?

It isn't Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Moslem, Farsi or Buddhist. I have read their books. So which?

Think again. The Federal buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 has been signed into law. It makes it illegal to knowingly enter an area under Secret Service Protection. Guess candidates no longer have to worry about opposition. Using the law's language in quotes, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Can you reconcile this with your first amendment rights? If you cannot, then consider showing up and finding a lawyer to help you challenge this inane law.

It makes it illegal to knowingly enter an area under Secret Service Protection. Guess candidates no longer have to worry about opposition. Using the law's language in quotes, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

What I want to know is, how does this reconcile with this moldy old policy?

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Did our own government just shut down the message?

10 points for the first right word. (hint: It is neither a liberal nor a conservative concept, but rather something we all value.)

Yes, I know it is unconstitutional for censorship, but why do I have to go to foreign news services to learn that Israel is double-dealing, planning to sell American arms cloned by the Chinese to the same markets?

Link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/23/breaking-p...

Where I am is far away from them, so I had to look at people who once were against the "Occupy" movement which shows no signs of stopping and has gone worldwide. I came up with a couple of links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE

http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-11-01-we-are-th...

I had many of the same misgivings as the second poster, but the one graphic from the first link showing Uncle Sam as a shadowy figure with elephant and donkey finger-puppets really hit home.

I have a family to support, but I think I will be giving "the many" my vacation time, even if it is to help keep the occupiers safe from predators. How about you? Do you think it is time to take a direct look? How many chances will you have to see people helping each other?

The discussions Romney has had and the reactions others have had to him bring this question up. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an authentic Muslim? Is Rick Perry an authentic Christian, Michele Bachmann an authentic Lutheran, Romney an authentic Mormon? Do any politicians live spiritual lives or must they compromise their faith to get elected? There isn't a right answer here, but I will select a thoughtful one.