Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Harvard Professors Shouldn't Be President

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
do we really need federal governmen to tell us how to drive
to wear a seatbelt
to run a business legally

do we need the government to tell us how labor laws are going to go?


Face it, if "big business" was free to do whatever they wanted, nobody would have a damn thing. And we'd all be working for pennies on the dollar


No, we don't need the federal government telling us how to drive. That's why states have their own driving laws.

And we don't need the federal government telling us to wear seat belts. That's idiotic as well.

Yes, the federal government has laws regarding the legal operation of businesses. This is required to facilitate interstate commerce.

You are free to choose who you work for. If you don't like what a business offers you can work for another company. And if you don't WANT a retirement account, you should be free to make that choice, not have it forced on you by big government.

If big government were allowed to do whatever it wanted, especially the things that Obama wants, we will all suffer the consequences.

The overriding question is this... what makes Obama think his mandates that he plans to impose on people will be better than what people have decided to do before he came along to tell them what to do???




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama didn't say anyone was stupid. That was you. No need to put words in his mouth.


No, he didn't say it directly. However, his plan to force companies to open retirement accounts to make it easier for employees to save money certainly implies that Obama believes the average employee needs help opening up a bank account. Now whether he believes they're too stupid, too lazy, or just too busy to do something so simple I don't know.

For all I know, Obama might not believe any of this crap and all he wants to do is create another government bureaucracy that ties in government mandated 401(k) plans with social security or something. Whatever the case, in my opinion it is outlandish to create a policy that FORCES businesses to open up retirement accounts for employees based on the *premise* that this is required to help people save money.

If that's the case, why not just MANDATE that people save money? Make it a federal law that people must save 10% of their paycheck or else be subject to fines?




And I'm curious, too, jamie. It's clear you don't support Obama. Care to share who you DO support? Just curious.


McCain.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 

So basically I have been a huge fan of your posts starting with the Obama- Bilderberg link...and I tend to agree with you also about keeping the government out of issues that dont have anything to do with them like forcing companies to open savings accounts for their employees....But it seems rather hypocritical that you support a candidate who openly talks about indefinite occupation of a sovereign nation (Iraq) and supports the future invasion of another sovereign nation (Iran). Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that both Obama and McCain would like to continue sticking the federal governments nose into places that it does not belong.
To sum it up... Just say NO to the two-party false dichotomies....Support someone who is for real change!!! There is no such thing as a wasted vote! We have the power to change our world.
Write in Ron Paul!!!



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


You support McCain huh?
Im so glad you said that

*cracks knuckles*

McCain voted for all of the following

Teaching creationism should be decided by school districts. (Jun 2007)
Not when school districts are funded with federal tax dollars


Voted against MLK holiday in 1983
Wow. Speaks for its self


Dont ask, dont tell is working dont tamper with it. (Jun 2007)

What a homophobe. Why is it a bad thing to be gay and in the military? Some of the most well-built guys i've ever seen are gay.


Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok. (May 2007)
Confederate flag, huh? And what nation does that stand for again?...oh thats right, it doesnt stand for any nation at all


Confederate flag is a “symbol of heritage”. (Jan 2000)
More ignorance. A heritage of racism should never be embraced.


-Bailing out Bear Stearns necessary to protect economy. (Apr 2008)
-Key is to not to bail out homeowners who speculated. (Apr 2008)

Can anyone say "contradiction" ?


-Control health costs so manufacturers stay competitive. (Oct 2007)

This one goes against your only issue with Obama's "issues". McCain wants to tell businesses what to charge for health care. How is that any different than telling a buisiness to open a 401k ?



-Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)


He wants to tell our founding fathers that they were wrong? We should allow the governator to be president? WOW.




So there's some things that McCain has said and voted for that, based on your dislikings of obama, should open your eyes to the hypocrisies your own party currently inherits

McCain is no different from Obama. Obama is no different from McCain
you refuse to acknowledge that because Fox news says im wrong.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by blindtheoryBut it seems rather hypocritical that you support a candidate who openly talks about indefinite occupation of a sovereign nation (Iraq) and supports the future invasion of another sovereign nation (Iran). Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that both Obama and McCain would like to continue sticking the federal governments nose into places that it does not belong.


The U.S. troops are in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. It's not an occupation.

Iran may or may not be planning on developing nuclear weapons, and has repeatedly made remarks about wiping Israel off the map. Failing to stop Iran from possession a nuke would be incredibly stupid.

Ron Paul was a great candidate. He's no longer an option. We are left with two choices. McCain or Obama. I choose McCain over Obama. Obama is inexperienced, has bad marxist policies, and tries to portray himself as something that he is not. McCain has more experience, has shown more willingness to work towards bipartisan solutions, and has policies that would put more responsibility into the hands of the people and less in the hands of the government.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

So there's some things that McCain has said and voted for that, based on your dislikings of obama, should open your eyes to the hypocrisies your own party currently inherits

McCain is no different from Obama. Obama is no different from McCain
you refuse to acknowledge that because Fox news says im wrong.


Interesting points about McCain. Unfortunately, McCain's past position on things like the Confederate Flag, gays, and MLK have nothing to do with the future direction of the country. McCain is far different from Obama. And I never watch Fox. Ever. Except to watch an occasional football game.

And you mistakenly think I am a Republican. I am not.

For whatever faults McCain has, he is still a far better option than Obama, who comes across as somebody who copied his policies from a poly sci textbook he read at Harvard. For example, he wants to mandate that the U.S cut back CO2 emissions to 80% of 1990 levels. This is completely unrealistic, not to mention unnecessary, not to mention a sure why to initiate a U.S. manufacturing and economic downturn the likes of which has never been seen.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Interesting points about McCain. Unfortunately, McCain's past position on things like the Confederate Flag, gays, and MLK have nothing to do with the future direction of the country. McCain is far different from Obama.






His past positions have nothing to do with his future intentions?

Wow. Yer gona have to help me out there, dude, because you completely lost me



"-Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007) "
i am completely shocked that this one doesnt completely change your mind

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


Jamie, just so you know, Obama is not, nor was he ever, a Harvard professor.

He attended Harvard Law School, and then went on to teach Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. wiki



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by jamie83

Interesting points about McCain. Unfortunately, McCain's past position on things like the Confederate Flag, gays, and MLK have nothing to do with the future direction of the country. McCain is far different from Obama.






His past positions have nothing to do with his future intentions?

Wow. Yer gona have to help me out there, dude, because you completely lost me



His past positions on inconsequential issues in terms of the direction of the country, e.g., MLK vote from what, 1983, has nothing to do with where we're headed in 2008. Neither does the confederate flag issue or the don't ask, don't tell issue. These are all media issues that won't make a difference in direction of the entire nation.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 


i see
so a man who supports biggotry is going to help unify the country?

A man who doesnt believe in equality for all people is going to unify the country?

You also chose to ignore the other issues i outlined, and im curious as to why.

i suggest before you reply and show your lack of knowledge

you go read my entire post

once more time.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
reply to post by jamie83
 


Jamie, just so you know, Obama is not, nor was he ever, a Harvard professor.

He attended Harvard Law School, and then went on to teach Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. wiki


Thanks for the information. Sorry if I implied that he was. I was thinking more about how his policies make me think he learned them from one of his professors at Harvard.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 



These are all media issues that won't make a difference in direction of the entire nation.


and actually, no , they are not 'media issues'

what you are covering about obama is a media issue

*I* actually did my own research on mcCain and his policies

you just get shovel fed by Fox News central.

All you have to do is go read up on McCains history, and you'll see that he's not the saint you want him to be man.

Im not saying vote obama
but don't think obama isnt, until you research it and decide for yourself.

still waiting on a reply from the other issues, as well.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Stand tall, Jamie. It's a common practice to attack the poster rather than the topic at hand when a poster has no argument. I've seen this same thing happen in more than one thread now and it's pretty pathetic. I don't know why the standard argument against anything conservative is to throw out the term "fox news", but it apparently is. I don't watch fox news either and I get it all the time.

I agree with you on this issue. Honestly, I don't think it's a huge deal since there's no forced contributions in this case, but it's still a case of the government dipping it's fat fingers into my business. What I find really odd about the entire situation is that nobody has mentioned social security yet. Social security is the government forcing me to contribute to a "savings account" that I *theoretically* get to cash in on in 40 years. Never mind the fact that I am perfectly capable of funding my own retirement without the government dipping into my paycheck every week and stealing a large percentage of my income...that I know I will never get back.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


Its funny that you both choose to ignore my questions to you about McCain and say "you are ignoring our thread"

quite the opposite, i participated in yoru thread, and you tucked tail and ran when i asked difficult questions.

i got some good ones coming up in just a few
lets see if you'll be able to answer those.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


Its funny that you both choose to ignore my questions to you about McCain and say "you are ignoring our thread"


Um...was this really meant to be aimed at me? I don't recall ducking you and I also don't support McCain.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
LMFAO...

It is seriously getting more and more pathetic...



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueTriangle
 


no way you can back track now



It's a common practice to attack the poster rather than the topic at hand


you are telling a lie

im not attacking just the poster and avoiding the thread

the OP is avoiding my posts inside of his own thread
but you still support that?
Maybe you can answer the questions then?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
If your anything like me you start to read these posts... and get all irritated that some other anti-obama idiot is on the loose...

Then I see it's another Jaime83 thread...

Soooo... I decide, since they only joined once OBAMA was a definite, they will leave when the elections over...

This is political baiting at it's worst and ATS has totally disregarded it.

This member should have been banned a LOOOONNNNGGGG time ago.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle

I agree with you on this issue. Honestly, I don't think it's a huge deal since there's no forced contributions in this case, but it's still a case of the government dipping it's fat fingers into my business.


True, but what do you think the chances are that once the mandatory accounts are set up the next phase will be mandatory contributions by the employer?

Honestly, the entire mindset that allows Obama to say that forcing companies to set up retirement accounts for employees to "make it easier" for employees to save money is pathetic.

You know what would make it easier to save money? If I didn't have to pay 40% of my income in taxes. And I'm with you on social security. If Obama is worried about helping me save for retirement, how about I get to keep the SS tax that's deducted from my paycheck, and let my employer put his share directly into my retirement account?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Its funny that you both choose to ignore my questions to you about McCain and say "you are ignoring our thread"

quite the opposite, i participated in yoru thread, and you tucked tail and ran when i asked difficult questions.


If you want to start a thread about McCain go ahead. This thread is about Obama's lame plan to force companies to open retirement accounts for employees because he thinks it will make it easier for employees to save money.

This is just more elitist, condescending, liberal ideology that's based on a premise that the American people aren't smart enough to do what's best for them without the government telling them what to do.





new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join