It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why Harvard Professors Shouldn't Be President

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:23 AM

So libs are for equal rights for all except unborn babies, right?
Oh, and parents, and business owners, and poor white people?

You see, arguing with a democrat is very difficult. They actually believe that they know what's best for you. That somehow you are not safe without mommy libby to tuck you in.


I am not a Mccain supporter, but will take a goat with principles over Obama any day. So although I hate to admit it, I will be voting against Obama instead of writing in my candidate (Ron Paul), by voting for Mccain.

The thing is, for every bad thing that you might have against Mccain, you also have a high point. With Obama it's all the lows.

I see where Jamie is coming from because all of the liberal policies from the past have evolved to the same crap this will become.

It doesn't take an idiot to see where this is headed, but if that's all we have to show this to...

BTW, it seems to me that a lot of democrats sure know what's up with fox news. I mean, I don't watch it, as all these libs quote the good parts for me on ATS.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 05:21 AM
Maybe I'm misreading or misunderstanding the thread, but mandatory superannuation contributions have been in place in Australia for quite some time.

I found a wikipedia article for others to look at what we have over here.



Prior to the introduction of the "Superannuation Guarantee" in 1992 by the Keating Labor government, reasonably widespread superannuation arrangements had been in place for many years under industrial awards negotiated by the union movement between 1986 and 1988 with support from the federal government as part of a "wage-tax trade off", allowing a non-inflationary means of wage increases.

The compulsory "Superannuation Guarantee" system was introduced as part of a major reform package addressing Australia's retirement income policies. It was anticipated that Australia, along with many other Western nations, would experience a major demographic shift in the coming decades, resulting in the anticipated increase in age pension payments placing an unaffordable strain on the Australian economy. The proposed solution was a "three pillars" approach to retirement income:

* A safety net consisting of a means-tested Government age pension system
* Private savings generated through compulsory contributions to superannuation
* Voluntary savings through superannuation and other investments

Since its introduction, employers have been required to make compulsory contributions to superannuation on behalf of most of their employees. This contribution was originally set at 3% of the employees' income, and has been incrementally increased by the Australian government. Since 1 July 2002, the minimum contribution has been set at 9% of an employee's ordinary time earnings. The 9% is thus not payable on overtime rates but is payable on remuneration items such as bonuses, commissions, shift loading and casual loadings.

Though there is general widespread support for compulsory superannuation today, it was met with strong resistance by small business groups at the time of its introduction who were fearful of the burden associated with its implementation and its ongoing costs. [1]

The Howard government has been criticised for its reluctance to increase the compulsory rate of superannuation. Had the compulsory rate been 15% since 1996, rather than the current 9%, total superannuation assets in Australia would be approaching $2 trillion - almost double the current level. [2]

After over a decade of compulsory contributions, Australian workers have over $1.177 trillion[3] in superannuation assets. Australians now have more money invested in managed funds per capita than any other economy[4].

Compulsory superannuation in combination with buoyant economic growth has turned Australia into a 'shareholder society', where most workers are now indirect investors in the stock market. Consequently, a lively personal investment marketplace has developed, and many Australians take an interest in investment topics.

[edit on 15/6/08 by GBBumblebee]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by jamie83

No my friend... Political baiting is showing your political opinion to try and change the views of others on this board. Baiting itself is using falsified information, or undocumented information (I believe this is the 10th thread you have been asked to cite links on yet you continue to refuse to.)

P.s. Whiny Liberals like me and Jesus are the reason you have a right to stand up and say anything negative about leadership. You should really look into the term liberal before you try and use it as a form of slander.

To bad Conservatives (go read the definition of that ohhh ever intelligent one) are the ones who want to stick to the old ways... too bad Conservatives are the ones who don't want to advance our society. Thank God for liberals or we might all be using outhouses and blood letting to this day.

here... I'll make it easy for you as a dictionary isn't a blog about the evils of Barack Obama.

from dictionary dot com.

con·serv·a·tive Audio Help /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.



lib·er·al Audio Help /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

So keep in mind... your consistent attacks of liberals... Just shows how ignorant your truly are.

I wasn't going to play the age card, but being a year your elder, I will play this much of it... I thought liberals were stupid for a while too... Then I started to research what each party was doing (voting wise and Presidency wise) and guess what... The Conservatives are out to screw ALL OF US...

Liberals are only out to screw people like you who think that we're the bad guys, because we comprehend equality.

so what now??? the folks at Mirriam-Webster a bunch of tax and spend liberals too?

Yes all of your threads are political baiting.... and whats really sad if my post will be docked points for the same thing... but your little liberal baiting thread will be allowed to stay...

Really makes you question whether this site is unbiased politically or not... being this is a CONSTANT find... Baiting threads on both the Dems and Reps.

(ohhh... FYI I'm whats called a Moderate. I believe in Conservative Spending, and taxation, but I believe in liberal social policies... Even funnier the Democratic campaign I'm currently writing for is getting more Republican backers than any other Dem in my states history... Why? Because my candidate is a moderate.)

To claim yourself to one specific side in these situations actually shows your ignorance, as BOTH groups have great ideas (though a majority are stupid, they do BOTH occasionally come up with something worth while)

anywho... I've been here for over a year and I haven't been kicked out yet...

If it takes my membership to get the friggin mods and owners to jump on your threads(AND DO THEIR FRIGGIN JOBS!!!!)... So Be it...

I can always make another one.


posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 10:35 AM
The feds are already taking 15% of everything you make up to the cutoff - 7.5% from you and 7.5% from the employer, for social security. None of that money is dedicated for the individual contributor. Why not let individuals keep a percentage in a self directed retirement account. Pres Bush tried that in his first term but he was shot down.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
no way you can back track now

I have no need to backtrack on anything. You have thrown out the word "troll" a few times in this thread and it sure looks to me like YOU ARE the troll. I'll agree that you have presented opposing arguments in this thread, but you are also attacking the poster which does nothing but derail the entire thread. When I posted my original message last night it was immediately after reading another jamie thread where the exact same thing was done. I honestly don't remember if it was you or somebody else but it struck me as sad.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

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

you are telling a lie

and just how do you think I'm lying? Are you alleging that it is NOT common practice to attack the poster rather than the topic? I see it all the time.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Maybe you can answer the questions then?

I'll be more than happy to answer questions for you if you'll cease with the kindergarten debate techniques and name calling.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Do you even know what a 401k is?

Yes I do. I'm currently enrolled in my company's 401k plan contributing 5% of my gross pay per paycheck.

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

I don't think so, NO. The less input the government has on my life, the better. Personally, I wear a seatbelt but if another person is willing to take the risk then that should be their choice.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
do we need the government to tell us how labor laws are going to go?

I guess I support a small amount of regulation, but it's a little ridiculous nowadays. Labor unions have done more for working conditions in this country than the government has. The problem is that labor unions have driven up the payscales so high that it's often hard to compete. There's a fine line between lack of government interference and too much government interference and I think we're on the too much side currently.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
so... is it safe to assume you're for McCain?

Nope, sorry. Guess I don't fit the mold you're trying to create here. I'm closer to being a republican than a democrat but I don't really fit the mold of either party. Ron Paul was closer to my political opinions than either candidate but he kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
You support McCain huh?

Nope, see above.


That's every question I found in this thread from you until you started requesting the defense of John McCain's policies. I won't answer these questions because I don't support them. Are you content that I'm not "ducking" you now?

I realize I'm not a mod, so take this with a grain of salt. If you really feel like you're being ducked, one post is sufficient to relay that information to the masses. I would respect that a lot more than multiple posts heckling the OP.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by coven

No my friend... Political baiting is showing your political opinion to try and change the views of others on this board. Baiting itself is using falsified information, or undocumented information (I believe this is the 10th thread you have been asked to cite links on yet you continue to refuse to.)

Why not discuss the topic of the thread instead of me. I posted links to all sources. If you don't like reading my posts just skip over them.

P.s. Whiny Liberals like me and Jesus are the reason you have a right to stand up and say anything negative about leadership. You should really look into the term liberal before you try and use it as a form of slander.

Sorry. YOU have nothing to do with giving me or anybody else rights.

Liberals are only out to screw people like you who think that we're the bad guys, because we comprehend equality.

That is one awesome quote dude! Thanks a million. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!!!

If it takes my membership to get the friggin mods and owners to jump on your threads(AND DO THEIR FRIGGIN JOBS!!!!)... So Be it...

Go for it. I've gotten at least a half dozen or so "applauses" from the mods since I joined so I honestly doubt you're going to get very far.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by SavageHenry

Which is good...because we need a massive government overhaul anyway...

And a 12 year University of Chicago Constitutional LAW professor might just be the Carpenter we need to reframe that Bushie calls it "A Goddamn Piece of Paper"...

We need a Constitutional work party...

I'm all for a Constitutional work party.... Maybe a U. of Chicago professor is what we need after all. Just as long as it's not a HARVARD professor...


So your Voting for Obama then .. good.

Now that Obama is head of the DNC.. and has forbade them from taking funds from lobbyists (which is a small start).. Perhaps that can pave the way for exposing the corrupted pathways of Washington...and we can get some nice reforms like instant run off voting.. and so forth...

One thing that those bastards definately DO not need to have in Washington DC is a monopoly and the job security that comes with it...

And then maybe we can have more one of the founding fathers greatest fears is we would become what we are today..

And for that we need change!.... with Republican control over the last 25 years especially for the last 7.. we have a massive mess to clean up.

The best thing about the criminal bush administration is how it showed us how dire the need for constitutional maintenance is.

If we would of followed the Constitution... we would not have the enormous mess we have before us...

It is a massive task to undertake... but can we Americans fix it..?

Yes we can!

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:02 PM

Sorry. YOU have nothing to do with giving me or anybody else rights.

Wow... It's nice to know you have any knowledge of my political background, the campaigns I have worked for or what I have helped these candidates to write bill wise...

Your assumption was expected.

You are not the only person who gets mod applause so don't act special... it's just a little pat on the head. (plus if you wanna pull that card I've had two different owners applause certain comments of mine)

As I have stated clearly, your posts are political baiting, and I'm sure your interest in our little site here will fade once you have to face the fact that Obama will be your president for the next 8 years.

I do not care to read your posts, but as a person who is ACTIVE in politics I have to call B.S. when I see it...

You can call your posts opinion but you state them as fact, and that alone is enough for you to be questioned as to your intent.

While you act as If I am only attacking your thread I am attacking the TOPIC... that being another B.S. Post about Obama... Hell... why don't you post all your info about Obama's muslim background, and education... After all its a fact... You know... I read it on the internets.

Enjoy your quote... It comes from a moderate, who thinks you deserve every screwing by the government you get. God knows people who do what your doing are the reason our system is screwed beyond belief.

Here's a better idea... Keep the OPINION to yourself. Let others think for themselves and decide who they want to be president. You don't see me making posts about how a McCain presidency is a guarantee his VP will take over (4 years=76 8 years=80... dead before he leaves...) Why Not? because if you want to vote for McCain, it is NOT MY PLACE to change your mind.

Seriously... You make yourself look bad, and you come across as a know it all when you take this course.

Politics is like religion. Just because you don't like something/someone doesn't mean you should speak out about it... Maybe it's because I'm southern, and now-a-days we like to let bye-gones be by-gones.

It would really help the way other members of the board viewed you.

Get pissy all you want, but I'm just calling it like I see it. and Right now I'm not seeing much of anything.

I still can't believe the mods aren't willing to see this for the political baiting it is.

brb with a T& C quote.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 08:06 PM
1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting outside the Politics forums at

Intriguing ain't it.

PTS is gone...

This baiting should NOT be allowed on the ATS politics boards... If you wanna keep it up... OPEN PTS BACK UP.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:02 AM

Jaime is the kind of guy/girl (i dont think Jaime ever specified)
that you can't talk to because they don't have an opinion

If (he?) is around cardinal fans, he's for the cubs

if (he?) is around cubs fans, he's for the cardinals

Around libs for cons
around cons for libs
etc etc etc

He doesnt have an actual opinion, becuase in order to have an opinion, you have to have something for it to be based on.

When i say to Jaime

You say you dislike Obama because he's for telling businesses what to do,
and then i cite direct words and voting policies for mccain that show mccain is fro the very same thing...its funny really because Jaime ignored me

refused to face facts, which tells me he doesnt have an opinion, he's just here for trolling.

Look how many pointless rhetorical posts he's done in the last few weeks. Very few actualy cite any information, and when he deos cite information, its not credible or justifiable.

FYI: I can rent a domain name for 14 dollars a month and call it
and post anything i want in there and use MY OWN WEBSITE as a reference for material here
but it doesnt make it "credible" because if you were to Google any information in there, you'd find most of it was opinionated.

Jaime has done this very thing. (he?) hasnt opened up his own website i dont think, but spends enormous amounts of time looking for run-of-the-mill websites that support his claim, but again have no credible evidence.

So to alleviate all of this - i just put him on ignore.
I tried discussing the issues of his thread and he said "stop stalking me"
i tried pointing out the other side for him, using actual voting records of mccain and obama. He said "you are obsessed with me or something?"

This thread is dead. All it is -- is Jaime trolling for ATS points.
I say any rhetorically driven posts that don't cite credible information of any kind go into the "skunk works" forum.

J.M.O. however.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:30 PM

I have decided to handle this in a rational manner.


To Jamie83 or JetxNet...

Debate Challenge Page

I will be posting this in all threads related to this particular topic.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in