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 Slams Obama´s Statements Today On Libya And The Constitution!

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



Bottom line is I did give facts and it's not my fault if you choose to post before you read them.

If you would like to debate anything i've stated feel free otherwise your little troll posts aren't helping this discussion along.


So, the constitution gives what powers to the State and Fed ??




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by UcDat
 

Right now he's kinda limited in Congress so it keeps him in check but I feel that if he were to get the Presidency he may act before thinking about all the consequences. Just my opinion however.


What he would do is what he has said he would for the last 30 years: only what the Constitution allows him to do. Not step on it and wipe his butt with it like our current President, as well as every other President since Woodrow Wilson.

/TOA



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by kro32
 



Bottom line is I did give facts and it's not my fault if you choose to post before you read them.

If you would like to debate anything i've stated feel free otherwise your little troll posts aren't helping this discussion along.


So, the constitution gives what powers to the State and Fed ??


I thought you knew the Constitution or are you asking me if I know it. And if your going where I think you are this could turn into a very long debate and very far off topic of this post.

To answer your question about state and federal rights however here you go:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I looked at the link you provided and although I don't live in the States so any point I make is obviously a moot one I did notice that on most issues his ratings by the various interest groups tended to hover anywhere from the 30 or so % to the 50-70% ratings for their particular area of interest. This could hint at equivication or compromise on certain issues. However when it comes to oil or alternative energy he seems 100% on the side of the oil barons. Be interesting to see where his campaign funds pour in from.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


And this is my problem with him. He's a strict constitutionalist and doesn't realize that the Constitution was purposefully designed to be changed depending on the needs of the day. This is why the founders explained in detail how to amend it. They knew it would have to be changed.

Paul doesn't believe in changing it and it's doubtful if he ever have supported all the amendments that have happened. We certainly know he wouldn't have voted for Civil Rights legislation.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


This man will have every intelligent persons vote in 2012. The idiots will likely vote for Obama, or not vote at all.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I'd give my first born son to go back 100 years with the foresight of future events.
That would put us a year and a half in front of the theft of Americas independence with the federal reserve act.
The constitutions days were numbered from that moment.
All that bloody work by president Jackson fighting off the economic vipers down the drain while our lulled leaders planed cocktails and merry.
If that moment in deception were foiled with vigilance there would be no need for Ron Paul to remind us how far we've fallen.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
never mind
edit on 3-7-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by josh2009s
 


I have a feeling even if everyone in this country voted for the man he still wouldn't get elected and Obama would get his next 4 years even though he stated it him self that hes a one term president. Obama's run as president has been horrible so of course just like bush he will get 4 more years. I don't hate Obama i think hes a great politician but a terrible president. His views on just about everything are too far to the left and in a time of crisis hes way to idealistic. Right now we need a practical leader plain and simple. The cost of the war on terror and the war on drugs the overwhelming police state all around the country is breaking the backs of the people who work and live here. We can hardly afford to pay our bills let alone fund illegal immigrants. In a perfect world yes but we are far from perfect right now. Ron is the only one who makes sense right now but hes old. We have far too many hippies and cowboys in our government



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





Voting him in would set this county back 100 years.


And that is bad????

A Hundred years ago there was no Federal Reserve and the USA was on the gold standard and citizens were allowed to OWNED gold.

Since then the US dollar lost 96% of its value. Value (or wealth) has been moved from Main Street to Wall Street as a result through wage deflation and price inflation. This was done KNOWINGLY by the people in power.



In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker. timelines.ws...


All those programs "socialist/progressives" love so much have put lots of money into the pockets of those controlling the FED. Half of the Federal debt is "owed" to the Federal Reserve or the banks. The money "lent" to the US government was PRINTED OUT OF THIN AIR!!!

On top of that The bureaucracy created is run FOR and BY the Corporate Cartels. The idea is to kill of the lean well run small business competition. Small businesses are innovators who produce more patents than big corporations. They produce 13 times more patents per employee.... these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Here is who REALLY runs the government:

The government-industry revolving door puts industry-friendly experts in positions of decision-making power. Often individuals rotate between working for industry and working for the government in regulatory capacities, arrangements that are fraught with potential for conflicts of interest....

Examples

* Edward C. (Pete) Aldridge, Jr. - In the month before he left the Pentagon to join the board of Lockheed Martin, Aldridge approved a $3 billion contract to build 20 Lockheed planes, "after having long criticized the program as overpriced and having threatened to cancel it."[2] While on the Lockheed board, Aldridge was named to head President Bush's commission on space exploration. "Lockheed is one of NASA's biggest contractors, and only Senator John McCain, ...objected and called for Mr. Aldridge's removal, complaining of conflict of interest."[3]

* David Bernhardt
o Government: Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of the Interior
o Industry: Previously an attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, and Farber, Bernhardt; lobbied Congress and federal administrative agencies on behalf of mining, oil, chemical companies and power plants...

* John D. Graham
o Government: Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
o Industry: Is on leave from position as Professor of Policy and Decision Sciences in the Faculty of Public Health at Harvard University, financed by corporate polluters
o "Graham is the de facto boss of all regulatory programs for the entire government -- any change in enviro rules must pass through his strangling hands. An avowed enemy of pollution regulations, he previously headed a quasi-academic front group that consistently issued reports claiming that environmental protections are too costly for industry -- not a surprising stance since he and his 'risk-assessment' center were financed by more than 100 corporate entities, including the American Petroleum Institute, Dow, Dupont, Exxon, Monsanto, and 3M."[8]...

Peter Pitts

* Former associate commissioner for external affairs of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Pitts served as the senior communications adviser to the FDA Commissioner. He provided strategic policy and program direction for the agency’s entire range of communications and interaction with stakeholders and other external audiences, including media. He oversaw the office of public affairs, office of the ombudsman, office of special health issues, and the advisory committee oversight and management staff."
* Joined Manning Selvage & Lee in June 2004 as senior vice president of health affairs. "Pitts will focus on three areas: counseling pharmaceutical, biotech and food companies on integrated marketing communications in a highly regulated environment; driving thought leadership on food and health issues facing the industry, including new drug development, drug importation, direct-to-consumer advertising, obesity and food labeling; and creating innovative consumer wellness programs for health and food companies."....

* Michael Taylor - Taylor, a former attorney for Monsanto, went to work for the United States Food and Drug Administration, where he helped draft FDA's policy declaring that genetically modified foods are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). While at the FDA, Taylor also wrote the policy that exempted biotech foods from labeling. His former law firm, which still represented Monsanto, then began suing dairies that labeled their milk rBGH-free (Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone to increase milk production). After these policies were written, Taylor left the FDA and eventually went back to work for Monsanto....

* Daniel E. Troy - Marking a dramatic shift in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy, Troy, formerly a representative of U.S. pharmaceutical firms and now lead counsel for the FDA, informed drug companies that he would provide aid in torpedoing certain lawsuits, especially those with claims of medications causing unexpected or harmful side effects.[32]. As of Septmeber 2, 2008, Troy will be lead counsel for the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline according tot he Wall Street Journal [33]

* Ann M. Veneman
o Government: U. S. Secretary of Agriculture (2001-2004)
o Industry: Private law practice; provided legal representation to the Sierra Nevada Access and Multiple Use Stewardship Coalition, a place-based consensus-building program for a section of California's forested areas (1999-2001)
o Industry: Served on the International Policy Council on Agriculture, Food and Trade, a group funded by Cargill, Nestle, Kraft, and Archer Daniels Midland; member of the Bennett Agriculture Round Table, and Food Foresight
o Government: Named head of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (1995-1999)
o Industry: Served on the board of directors for Calgene Inc (makers of genetically-engineered Flavr Savr tomato, bought by Monsanto in 1997)
o Government: U.S. Department of Agriculture under George Herbert Walker Bush (1986-1993)...
www.sourcewatch.org...


The list of course goes on and on and on.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I see we had the same reaction to that line.

Nice research
etoile



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is an idiot.

Voting him in would set this county back 100 years.


You really need to elaborate on what you say because such a broad statement can mean anything. So when you say he will set the country back 100 years, what do you mean? Set the country back in time? Or slow the economic advancement? Or are you talking about the military, or maybe the culture, or the....

What do you mean.

Vague statements such as yours have increased in number, and they are starting to gain popularity. Please don't bring MSM to ATS, the rhetoric that they slapped us with day and night, we are trying to run away from "they want to kill us for our freedom".



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


ya he explains himself rather well if you got time to read through the posts...

For the record I dont agree with him on most of it seems to be saying he fears giving the states more freedom will lead to chaos and that Ron Paul is too old school. Seems more like a fear of change but given our current system that's what we need the most.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





He want's to return far too much power to the states which will lead to such a mess in everything it's hard to conceive. One state will allow gay marriage and another won't, this state will have these laws on abortion and this one won't, this state will have these standards for education and this one won't.....


AND people would have the FREEDOM to live in a state with laws to their liking instead of having the Banking/Corporate cartel shove unwanted laws down their throat.


....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,....


What is it they YOU do not like about the PEOPLE determining what laws they wish to live under?????

If the governed do not make the laws then you have some sort of totalitarian regime. Right now we live under a Oligarchy in which all power is vested in a few people who are richer and more powerful than the rest of us.


OligarchyUSA.com

To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."

Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia......


For example control of our food supply has been turned over to the Ag Cartel (IPC) other wise known as The World Trade Organization:

The "Food Safety Modernization Act" just being passed in December 2010 includes the following section:

SEC. 404. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
www.fda.gov...


This despite the evidence that HACCP was responsible for the food borne illness increase. Shielding the Giants details the history of the cover-up of food borne diseases caused by the big corporations. www.whistleblower.org...

This is collaborating information:
Senate Hearings
www.access.gpo.gov... Testimony by Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals:

www.fsis.usda.gov... Hearing where Stan Painter is called a LIAR by the government. (In a round about way of course)

A well documented History of the decades long plans of the Committee for Economic Development (established 1942) to wipe out American farming and rural American for the purpose of providing cheap labor, mortgages and customers for the banks and mega corporations.

Economic Concentration in Agribusiness Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture,

"CONCENTRATION IN AGRICULTURE AND AN EXAMINATION OF THE JBS/SWIFT ACQUISITIONS"

This rule by Oligarchy explains why the Food Safety Modernization Act was rammed down our throats during a lame duck session of Congress. It also explains why we now have ten multinationals controlling the entire world food supply and the US government (Department of Justice) ruled in FAVOR of JB Swifts acquisitions.


...On October 20, 2008, DOJ and 13 states filed a complaint in U.S. District Court to block the JBS buyout of National Beef Packing Company, citing concerns that it could contribute to higher consumer prices and also lower producer prices. That same day DOJ announced it would not challenge the JBS acquisition of Smithfield Beef Group, and JBS subsequently acquired this business.... www.nationalaglawcenter.org...



Dwayne Andreas worked for Cargill and then worked for Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADMC) becoming CEO in 1971. He is considered the TOP campaign donor in the USA.

Here is an example of how Congress is "bought"

...Dwayne Orville Andreas (born 4 March 1918) is one of the most prominent political campaign donors[1] in the United States, having contributed millions of dollars to Democratic and Republican candidates alike....

In 1971 Andreas became Chief Executive Officer of ADM, and is credited with transforming the firm into an industrial powerhouse — so powerful that by 1996, ADM had been investigated for price-fixing and was assessed the largest antitrust fine in United States history: 100 million dollars....

Andreas commands much respect among Washington politicians for his largesse. As part of the investigations surrounding illegal campaign fundraising linked to the Watergate scandal, Andreas was charged with (but acquitted of) illegally contributing $100,000 to Hubert Humphrey's 1968 presidential campaign. In 1972 Andreas unlawfully contributed $25,000 to President Nixon's re-election campaign via Watergate burglar Bernard Barker. Other recipients of Andreas's "tithing" — as he puts it — have included George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Jack Kemp.

According to Mother Jones magazine:


“ During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in soft money and $345,000 to individual candidates, using multiple donors in his company and family members (including wife Inez) to circumvent contribution limits.”

en.wikipedia.org...



It is a heck of a lot harder to buy fifty states than it is to buy the US Congress. THAT is why the states were supposed to deal with the day to day business and the Federal government was suposed to deal with only that business that effected the country as a whole.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Here is an idea, how about instead of bickering and bitching over we should choose for 2012, so that they can continue to lie and cheat the people, we take back our country, NO, take back our World. Vote The People 2012.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




Rules governing food and safety

Rules for environmental protections

Rules for nuclear safety


Yeah.. because national standards in those areas have been so high.

edit on 3-7-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by UcDat
 


...

He want's to return far too much power to the states which will lead to such a mess in everything it's hard to conceive. One state will allow gay marriage and another won't, this state will have these laws on abortion and this one won't, this state will have these standards for education and this one won't.

America will become a hodgepodge of different sets of rules for people to live by.

...



You make it sound like a bad thing. Everything you said sounds absolutely great. There are tons of European nations without any papa bear feds telling them what to do. Do any of them revert to Nascar-worshiping Jim Crow nations? No. You must think that Americans are truly and utterly more repugnant and horrible than the rest of the world.

People as individuals would still be protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution but beyond that, states decide for themselves.

If a liberal socialist like me can see that, why can't you?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by confreak

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Paul is an idiot.

Voting him in would set this county back 100 years.


You really need to elaborate on what you say because such a broad statement can mean anything. So when you say he will set the country back 100 years, what do you mean? Set the country back in time? Or slow the economic advancement? Or are you talking about the military, or maybe the culture, or the....

What do you mean.

Vague statements such as yours have increased in number, and they are starting to gain popularity. Please don't bring MSM to ATS, the rhetoric that they slapped us with day and night, we are trying to run away from "they want to kill us for our freedom".


Very well perhaps it was a very broad statement which is why i've given a couple of specific examples earlier. I posted his voting record to show that he does have some very good stances but in terms of civil rights or peoples liberty's I believe he would set the country back 100 years by returning more power to the states.

Those that ask if that's a bad thing need to look at what the country was like when states had more power than the federal government. Civil rights did not exist, women could not vote, is this a return that alot of people would not mind happening? I don't believe so.

When states were left up to their own it led to a Civil War because what the states wanted conflicted with what the federal government wanted. And there is a system, no matter how corrupt you may think it is, for the states to be represented within the federal government.

My opinion is that Paul would return power to the states and we may have to end up repeating the mistakes we've made in the past. Do we want to risk another incident where the President has to call out the national guard because some state has gotten an idea to bring back seperate but equal rules?

You may think this might not happen but it wasn't that long ago when this was America's policy and states were electing the David Dukes of the world. Those were not good times I would care to see repeated. What if Arizona passed a law very strict against immigration while New Mexico decides to open their border completely, could you imagine the mess that would cause?

While I do believe the States should govern themselves to a point there is also a place where the Federal government fits in. Alot of people debating this seem to take the view that we should return to the country where we lived under the Articles of Confederation that severly limited the Federal Government. However this was decided to be inefficient at running the country since the government was to ineffective at maintaining a balance among the colonies and enforcment prompting the founders to write the Constitution.

Hope this explains my views a little better.
edit on 3-7-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


What I see is that not too long ago our seperate but equal laws were still the policy. It is far from ancient history and people were still protected by the Bill of rights and the Constitution when it was implemented. How do you believe it wouldn't happen now when it has happened in the past.

It would be nice if the world changed overnight but that is not the case. Ron Paul holds the same views you do which is the part I do not like about him.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Those that ask if that's a bad thing need to look at what the country was like when states had more power than the federal government. Civil rights did not exist, women could not vote, is this a return that alot of people would not mind happening? I don't believe so.



But the whole world was backwards during that era. If you think that national mentality persists forever then, by your rationale, Germany should never have had autonomy again because of past crimes.




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join