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.
Im just curious as to what policy this is exactly where US citizens who question are automatically killed? Do you have the policy link? Do you have proof that this is a policy? Its no secret that the government keeps tabs on those who advocate the overthrow of the government or terrorists plots within america. I mean this has been the fact of government agencies for decades and were increased following the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11. However this specific policy of where people get shot on sight? Where does is say that? Do you have any evidence besides a youtube link?
Ron Paul should be the last one to talk, having being a member of the GOP for nearly 20 years now, and having remained in that party despite the fact such policies had existed under that same party. You do know the policy of keeping tabs on anti-government groups is a continuation from the Bush administration and the GOP? If you spoke bad about the president especially following 9/11 you were automatically listed and you know what? Ron Paul remained in the GOP. No excuse for that.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by OpTiMuS_PrImE
This is a follow up of what i had posted the other day released by RT News glad RP took notice of the issue.
Im just curious as to what policy this is exactly where US citizens who question are automatically killed? Do you have the policy link? Do you have proof that this is a policy? Its no secret that the government keeps tabs on those who advocate the overthrow of the government or terrorists plots within america. I mean this has been the fact of government agencies for decades and were increased following the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11. However this specific policy of where people get shot on sight? Where does is say that? Do you have any evidence besides a youtube link?
Take note the undermining process of what this means anyone who disagrees and talks down on obama can be deemed as terrorist,
Ron Paul should be the last one to talk, having being a member of the GOP for nearly 20 years now, and having remained in that party despite the fact such policies had existed under that same party. You do know the policy of keeping tabs on anti-government groups is a continuation from the Bush administration and the GOP? If you spoke bad about the president especially following 9/11 you were automatically listed and you know what? Ron Paul remained in the GOP. No excuse for that.
Heres Ron Paul telling all his followers to endorse other Texan incumbent GOP candidates who had been supporting such policies, in particular the patriot act:
www.youtube.com...
So, I really find it ironic that Ron Paul would talk. Allthough maybe it should not be surprising? He is after all just another GOP part appealing to a segment of the voter population?
I oppose the patriot act as it does invade our rights to privacy, and I had been dissappointed at the fact Obama still has not removed the bill. But this accusation that people can be "killed" for being critical is a very strong accusation and requires strong evidence. None of which the OP has demonstrated.
[edit on 31-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by suicydking
Ron Paul is still doing what he's always done. you can't blame him for the state of the GOP now a days. It's not his fault the party is full of neo-cons instead of conservatives. He still fits the definition of what the party is supposed to stand for, which is small government and state's rights over federal.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by suicydking
Ron Paul is still doing what he's always done. you can't blame him for the state of the GOP now a days. It's not his fault the party is full of neo-cons instead of conservatives. He still fits the definition of what the party is supposed to stand for, which is small government and state's rights over federal.
What exactly is the difference between a neo-con and a traditional conservative? A lot of fuss is being made out of it but I doubt many people actually know the difference.
And how is a "small government" less corrupt than a "big government". If by small you mean less regulations versus less personel/smaller&fewer departments, than I can understand that but I don't necessarily agree with you.
It would seem, the smaller a government is the more corrupt it becomes because fewer people are involved in the decision making process. As in business, the greater the competition the less chance of corruption.
I am for big government, but not a corporate usa. I want all corporate contributions to the political process banned and give that right to the tax-payers because government is suppossed to represent the people, not corporations. Corporations are immortal entities, not human beings and thus not entitled to special privileges as currently is the case. It is ok to lobby but no pay-offs!
The way I see it, only rich people and large corporations can benefit from a small government. As for ron paul, I think he is affiliated with the wrong party. He belongs to the libertarians and is waisting his time with the gop.
Originally posted by suicydking
Well, small government is good for a number of reasons. It's cheaper, for one.
Originally posted by suicydking
Second, as the federal government is diminished, more rights are returned to the states. As a resident of a state, you have greater control over what the laws & such are where you live. If you don't like something, you can try change it or simply move to a state that is more in line with your lifestyle. You don't have to leave the country if a law offends you, just the state.
Originally posted by suicydking
Bigger government doesn't mean less corruption, it just means a larger morass and more red tape. It's harder to get things done and there is much much less accountability.
Originally posted by suicydking
As far as the difference between a neo-con & a conservative, neo-cons generally favor a policy of using military & economic means to affect the culture or economy of other nations. Bringing democracy to the rest of the world, so to speak. Traditional conservatives tend to favor a more hands-off approach. There is quite a bit of info on the neoconservative movement available, you should be able to find ample sources on the web that are factual instead of just hit-pieces.