It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A new Ron Paul Interview gives me a few questions, some1 answer them 4 me

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

For god's sake I hope Ron Paul gets elected in 08.

But I didn't know he wanted to abolish the UN.
It makes complete sense of course, but does the american president even have enough power to abolish it, i think not, so why say it?

He says he wants to get rid of the the Department of Energy, someone educate me on why, Department of Education someone again school me on why.... Everything else is self-evident to any person with half a brain.

Thanks alot
hopefully I can understand why with everyone's posts




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Return control to the states. Those agencies give power to the federal government to dictate energy and education policies to the States. It is the States who educate the children, and manage energy resources. Do they need one-size-fits-all programs? Some things do need to be standardized. But that should be done through legislation, not through unelected beaurocratic deciders.

By getting rid of the UN he means getting us out of it, and getting it out of America.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
thank you for the excellent response
I see now how it fits his overall goal to give back power to the people within states.

But wouldn't no longer participating in U.N decision making power have a negative effect? He wouldn't have any influential power on decision making powers for u.n issues.

Also, I understand how he wants to give power to the states but two questions.

1) Americans are passive people too busy in their everday life. Would they actually take the time to educate themselves on energy and education issues to number one make an educated vote and two.. to actually vote?

2) Are there any examples of bad decisions for the country that the education and energy departments have made? Or is it only to return control to the states?

[edit on 8-7-2007 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I think his ideas are refreshing. Only problem I see is that b/c of greed and deception every aspect of our everyday lives has been corrupted. How do we just end that? I don't see any elected official making it any BETTER...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Return control to the states. Those agencies give power to the federal government to dictate energy and education policies to the States. It is the States who educate the children, and manage energy resources. Do they need one-size-fits-all programs? Some things do need to be standardized. But that should be done through legislation, not through unelected beaurocratic deciders.

By getting rid of the UN he means getting us out of it, and getting it out of America.



EXACTLY

That is his entire point.. and it is NOT "Republican" values .. no, its Libertarian values. He is running on the R ticket for recognition and the ability to be in the primaries. Its very hard for 3rd parties out there.

Essentially the view on the Department of Education is that Congress nor the Executive Branch was EVER given control of the education system in America under the constitution. No, it was left out because the founding fathers intended that a LOCAL population educate their own LOCAL population -- a fat cat in DC has no right to dictate education to a Free State of the Union 3,000 miles away. No right at all. This "No child left behind" crap is what is ruining the countries education system because it is essentially bureaucracy raping the system.

The Department of Education is essentially a bureaucratic waste of space, if we destroyed half the bureaucratic crap from our government billions will be freed to invest in our economy and society as a whole. Yet the Bureaucracy grows to feed the growing Bureaucracy.

As for the words of getting rid of the UN he means as Malichai says, drop out and leave. And as we leave, end all funding to the UN, end all funding to the NATO organization, and any other group no longer serving our interest.. if we leave the UN and kick them out of New York, then the UN will fall flat on its face and the league of procrastinating appeasers will end entirely.

The United States should care for the United States first and last, a more isolationist view is needed for this country.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Drats, Rockpuck got here first.


One thing I don't entirely agree with, though, is that Paul should be in the Libertarian party. He's more of a Paleoconservative, really. The Old Right. These views are very representative of what the Republican party used to be before all this interventionist nonsense.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
But I didn't know he wanted to abolish the UN.
It makes complete sense of course, but does the american president even have enough power to abolish it, i think not, so why say it?

As Rockpuck explained (making this somewhat redundant), we can just leave it. Which I support with all my heart.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
He says he wants to get rid of the the Department of Energy, someone educate me on why

I don't know a great deal about this department. I'm guessing that anything used by the military (like the Navy's nuclear power program) would be left, since it's part of defense. But we fund a lot of research we don't have to.



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Department of Education someone again school me on why.... Everything else is self-evident to any person with half a brain.

This one is easy though. There's not much the federal government can do to make anything work better. I don't really love public education myself, but it's not the issue here. The federal government has no place in education. If it's needed, the states, counties, municipalities, and whatever other local governments are in place can take care of it. I don't want to pay to educate someone in Houston, especially because they might view education differently. I think "Physical Education" is a waste of time and money, but others might not agree. Don't make me pay for it.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I've heard through multiple sources that the United States doesn't even exist anymore. And the only place included is DC. They are going to push the North American Union. I don't see elections meaning anything.

Plus Hillary's the NWO frontchild...



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
agree with John MIke and Rockpuck.

Public education has become like so much of the government. A jobs program..not about its stated purpose. Educating our children is about teaching them to think about the material presented to them. They dont present much diverse material..nor how to think or think outside authorized thinking blocks.

Dept of Energy...lol lol lol. Same thing as Dept of Education. A jobs program for bureaucrats.

All you need to know is that the one sector which is growing by leaps and bounds is government ..of all types..state local and federal. They can force their revenues...which is also a definition of Government. Any institution which can force it's revenue is a government.

Ron Paul to my knowlege agrees neither with the Republican nor the Democrat practices which is also why both news medias are avoiding him. Fox news doesnt like him nor does the very liberal news media. They are both covering thier behinds on this and hoping the pubic never catches on or sees what is missing from their party speeches/platforms.
Ron Paul is a conservative in the Olde School way. Limited Government means a free people. ONe of the ways to do this is keep government broke by going back to the olde original bi metalic moneys. Gold and Silver. I know that Ron Paul is knowlegable on this ability to keep government in check by keeping honest money of "just weights and measures." This in particular is the secret both the Repubicans and Democrats dont want the public to ever know. This way ..both of the phoney Republicans and Democrats can continue to steal from the public unaccountably....which is exactly what they are both doing.l This is one of the facets they fear about Ron Paul. He knows how to go about it and is afraid that he will educate to many Americans on what this means about government and its ability to sell America short for the benifit of the body politic. They are afriad he will educate the public on how the government steals from us by deficit spending...for pork programs...either social programs or war programs....which are also social programs. War programs just look different on the outside.

As for getting rid of the UN..I am in agreement with Ron Paul on this. There is no authorization in the US Constitution to cede our government role or hard won independence to outsiders. This is treason on the part of our Government Servants. The UN needs to be moved outside the United States...to Canada , Africa or Europe. Asia would be ok too.
IT wouldnt bother me at all if we dropped funding of the UN. Then we could see how well this bastard child can stand on its own feet or does it need to be breastfed in perpetuity.
The UN is nothing but a rehash/recycling of the failed League of Nations tried after WW1 and that misadventure was just as unsuccessful.

As to UN issues...you see how effective the UN is in just about every endevour it takes up. Why do we need to cow cow to such failures. No matter how much they gloss it up in the news.

We need to throw off this yoke and go it alone..once again. Let the UN flounder in its man made cess. It is a constant drag on our system and will only wax worse. We can do better for our nation without the UN. Not the other way around.

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
UN exits to push the world into a world order. It's funtionality is a joke. They back the owners of the fed reserve and world bank. It's just a front to widen the gap between the have's and havenots before subjugating us to a world order.

While I like the things Ron Paul is saying, I think that it's too fargone to do anything about it, unless society stops being fearful and takes over. It can be done, it won't be comfortable, but it can happen..



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
This one is easy though. There's not much the federal government can do to make anything work better. I don't really love public education myself, but it's not the issue here. The federal government has no place in education. If it's needed, the states, counties, municipalities, and whatever other local governments are in place can take care of it. I don't want to pay to educate someone in Houston, especially because they might view education differently. I think "Physical Education" is a waste of time and money, but others might not agree. Don't make me pay for it.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Johnmike]


I somewhat agree with you on that, but standardizations is also important.

If you have messy code, programmers call that spaghetti code.

States voting for very different educational roadmaps can cause spaghetti standards within a country too.

For example look at media, you have microsoft's .wmv file extension, than u have apple's .mov and realplayer's .ram, and you have third party standars like .ogg, .mp3 and so on and so forth. Competition is good, but not for education, so many different standards accross states creates too much incompatibilities.

This does create problems for users, as their windows media player won't play .ram files or .mov files, and realPlayer not supporting .mp3 etc....

Should a New Yorker have alot of trouble finding a job in California?
It is after all the same country!

[edit on 9-7-2007 by ModernAcademia]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Yeah standardization has gotten us real far. Public education is becoming more and more nothing but lowest common denominator education.

Diploma factories, if you will.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
www.youtube.com...

For god's sake I hope Ron Paul gets elected in 08.

But I didn't know he wanted to abolish the UN.
It makes complete sense of course, but does the american president even have enough power to abolish it, i think not, so why say it?

He says he wants to get rid of the the Department of Energy, someone educate me on why, Department of Education someone again school me on why.... Everything else is self-evident to any person with half a brain.

Thanks alot
hopefully I can understand why with everyone's posts


Calm down America, Ron Paul, as president would rule as an old time moderate or a Goldwater/Reagan conservative. He would be restrained by the established establishment and he would respect the voice of the people. He wouldn't be too radical. But he would be a good steward of the people. He would enforce fiscal discipline and accountability. And those things are more sorely needed than most can imagine.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join