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.

 

Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beansanmash
 


We can't get rid of Lobbying for two reasons:

1."Congress shall make no law respecting.....the right of the people....to petition the government" It would conflict with the first amendment

2. Lobbying would just go under the table, and would would have Russia-style corruption ridden politics. (We have enough of that already!)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by beansanmash
 


We can't get rid of Lobbying for two reasons:

1."Congress shall make no law respecting.....the right of the people....to petition the government" It would conflict with the first amendment

2. Lobbying would just go under the table, and would would have Russia-style corruption ridden politics. (We have enough of that already!)


I hope what you said about number 1 was satire. Here is the text of the 1st Amendment:


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.


Number 2 is true, however. But that happens anyway. Not that it's right.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


RE: Ron Paul will legalize heroine and prostitution.

Do you realize that can't even be legally done at the federal level. Yes or no? Do you realize that prostitution is *already legal* at the federal level? Yes or no? Learn the facts before railing against Paul.

PS - Ron Paul has never once created an effort to legalize prostitution or heroin. Never. Your afraid of an effort that doesn't even exist. Ron Paul has real problems to deal with at the moment.
edit on 11-6-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
im not overly in the know, but if there are large companies funding his campaign would he not be obliged to return the favor later down the track when they ask him to support this law, or legalize this or go against something else...whilst on campaign people can promise heaven, but once they are where they want to get to, its an entirely different situation, people can have good intentions, but in the end its the people that got them there that run the show...not that one person...unless they have to balls to bite the hand that feeds them.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Actually number 1 isn't satire it's fact. The 1st amendment covers lobbying. It's considered a redress of grievances.

There are, however, ways to reform this without violating the Constitution.

Shrinking the amount of power the government wields would go a long way toward making corporate lobbying ineffective.
edit on 11-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


No it was not satire. You cannot (or rather, should not) restrict people from spending there money they way they want.

Although, if we had real sound money we wouldn't have to deal with mega Too Big to Fail banks buying up politicians, because they all would be bankrupt.

That is why Paul always harps on ending the Fed, after that many things will heal themselves

By the way what I said is actually how Ron Paul feels on the issue. I copied that directly from his book (Liberty Defined pg 178, second paragraph). This is what he says verbatim on lobbying:



Lobbying is protected by the first Amendment's admonition that "the congress shall make no laws respecting...the right of the people...to petition the government." "petitioning" is a legitimate right and should be used in a positive way. Certainly, proponents of gun ownership, right to life, low taxes, and sound money-any cause, really- deserve the right to petition the Congress at will


Maybe you should get to know the candidate you stand behind a little more hmm?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


ok that one confused me

both sides bribing the government is consdiered free speech?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Absolute rights are a fantasy.
Examples of the bankruptcy of this notion and the abject stupidity of Ron Paul :

Scenario: If someone’s religion says they should deny their children health care and only pray for God to heal them, and their children start dying, then shouldn’t they have the right to do that? Does the state have the right to intervene?
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS REMEMBER

If a business owner hires children and works them 16 hours a day, and even goes overseas and buys slaves and works those 20 hours a day, does the state have the right to intervene? Or is the concept that Ron Paul advocates give this business the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what he wants to his employees?


So Ron Paul didn’t like the civil rights act, therefore business owners have the ABSOLUTE right to discriminate against black and brown people by not hiring them.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Basically I like Dr. Paul but I could never vote for anyone that wants to steal my tax dollars that I have already paid into the system. Privatize....to who? Another corrupt govt. contractor like Haliburton?

Privatize SS, then privatize the VA and the Indian Health Service and all the other Socialist giveaways of my tax dollars.


You've got it as backwards as you can possibly get it. Social Security is on track to end up bankrupt... not paying out any benefits. Dr. Paul has made it clear that Social Security should have to pay back the money people put into it. Therefore the candidates you refuse to vote for are the ones who are going to help you get the most money back, while the candidates you would vote for are the ones who will lead to you getting nothing out of social security.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Lobbying (in it's true form) is not bribing. It was meant to be a vehicle to alert your congressmen of the issues you feel are important, and where you stand on them. It was supposed to bring the people and congress closer. I admit it is not a perfect system, but it is still constitutional. Maybe in the future an amendment will be passed so it is less like bribery but for now we are stuck with it

If you want a candidate to be elected, you pay for his banners, signs, advertisements ect. That is the way the founding fathers intended it to be.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by projectvxn
 


ok that one confused me

both sides bribing the government is consdiered free speech?


It's true. You can't ban it. However you can create a government who's social engineering powers are impotent and you can remove power from certain agencies that play favorites with industrial regulation and viola! lobbying becomes less powerful and less profitable.
edit on 11-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


My friend, you clearly don't understand how our rights work.




Scenario: If someone’s religion says they should deny their children health care and only pray for God to heal them, and their children start dying, then shouldn’t they have the right to do that? Does the state have the right to intervene? ABSOLUTE RIGHTS REMEMBER


Yes the state should intervene! The children's rights to life are being infringed upon. Remember liberty is doing what you want with your body, mind and property up until what you are doing is interfering with someone else's liberty



If a business owner hires children and works them 16 hours a day, and even goes overseas and buys slaves and works those 20 hours a day, does the state have the right to intervene? Or is the concept that Ron Paul advocates give this business the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what he wants to his employees?


Once again, this is what the Amendments and Constitution are for, affirming that all people have inalienable rights like the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (And yes I know that is actually from the Declaration of Independence). Once again, the state should step in because he is clearly interfering with the rights of others




So Ron Paul didn’t like the civil rights act, therefore business owners have the ABSOLUTE right to discriminate against black and brown people by not hiring them.


The right to discriminate? You really have a strange idea of what rights are. Ron Paul knows that Affirmative action and quotas do little to affect the underlying core discrimination. You can't fight fire with more fire. Slow and steady integration is the best way to deal with racial differences, as it allows many to see that we are all merely human, and skin color discrimination is a tool used by others that are in a different socioeconomic class
edit on 11-6-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


True enough, though the current form of "lobbying" isn't a redress of grievances. It has mutated over the decades to something more disgusting. Just like the two major parties have.

OK, I misread Skerako's post. I see what he was saying about lobbying. Duh. Reading r gud.

/TOA
edit on 11-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
Absolute rights are a fantasy.
Examples of the bankruptcy of this notion and the abject stupidity of Ron Paul :

Scenario: If someone’s religion says they should deny their children health care and only pray for God to heal them, and their children start dying, then shouldn’t they have the right to do that? Does the state have the right to intervene?
ABSOLUTE RIGHTS REMEMBER

You act as if the answer is obvious. Hospital malpractice is one of the leading causes of death in the USA. Until that changes, then yes, its okay that people will allow prayer for their children only. A right that isn't absolute can't be called a right.


If a business owner hires children and works them 16 hours a day, and even goes overseas and buys slaves and works those 20 hours a day, does the state have the right to intervene? Or is the concept that Ron Paul advocates give this business the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what he wants to his employees?


Ron Paul is against slavery. You're very far off on that point. Very far.


So Ron Paul didn’t like the civil rights act, therefore business owners have the ABSOLUTE right to discriminate against black and brown people by not hiring them.

Ron Paul does like the civil rights act. He would not have voted for it because of an unconstitutional provision in the act denying an employer their right to chose to help anyone of their choosing for any reason of their choosing by hiring them for a job. Its a man's right to choose. I think you forcing other people to spend their money how you say is even more morally bankrupt than allowing people to make bad decisions with how to spend their money.

The proper way to solve unfair workplace actions is through ethical shopping practices, not by making up millions of laws of code that make it impossible to do business without being rich in the first place. Your business regulations you so love are destroying this country because they force small businesses to hire a team of lawyers, which of course they can't afford.

If a business damages someone, the proper resolution is though a court system, not through you shoving your morals down other people's throat.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


reply to post by projectvxn
 



this country is so screwed up even to its foundations its a daunting task to set straight what has gone wrong wiith it

and it aint going to ever happen over nite that is just simply outrageous



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


I can’t believe it, a libertarian saying the government should intervene!
So now you agree with me when real life scenarios prove that “inalienable rights” are not absolute.

You make my point that rights are mitigated by our relationship with others.
Then the question becomes something that dogmatic libertarians don’t understand, the degree in which the government should intervene.


Regarding your last statement: The civil rights act is not an affirmative action law; it is a law that criminalizes private companies from discriminating on the basis of race or gender:

en.wikipedia.org...
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").”

Paul is against it because he believes “private companies” have the right to discriminate



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
man people who call paul a racists are clueless.

its not the governments responsibility to legislate how to be a better person.

with all their laws has racism been erradicated? no.

pauls stance is most if not all issues reside at the state and local levels.

those arguements agianst paul are ignorant and never win or change peoples minds

but simply shows those who expouse that rhetoric are trying to convince themselves of the justness of their cause more than anyone else.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If you allow private companies to discriminate . . . imagine that, for example, the owners of General Motors are allowed to not hire blacks and woman!

And many of the other huge corporation, what that would do to our society?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
If you allow private companies to discriminate . . . imagine that, for example, the owners of General Motors are allowed to not hire blacks and woman!

And many of the other huge corporation, what that would do to our society?


I think the better question is, what would that do to General Motors in TODAY'S society?

They would go bankrupt.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


they would go out of business for being stupid

pretty simple

stupid doesnt survive in this country that is unless your a lefist



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join