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 voted to not protect children from harm

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbc650mike
reply to post by kro32
 


Ok I hear what you're saying, but if it already passed then why is it being voted on again?


When is it being voted on again?


To add to it? I wonder if the 26 states who already had their systems set up, got 25 Million re-imbursed. Most of the time the Amber Alert signs on the freeway tell me how long it will take me to get to the airport or nearby town, or to click it or ticket. Maybe the signs could be used to report other crimes like rapes, shootings etc . Go Ron Paul


Not enough children are being kidnapped for you to feel it is worth the money? Maybe someone can break down cost/benefit analysis then?




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
Well apparently programs can exist without being 'federal'. He is saying that the Amber program has been very effective the way it is and according to him to make it 'federal' will diminish the effectiveness the program has been showing.


That does nothing to answer my question. I want to know why Ron Paul would say out loud that he refuses to vote for something because it is unconstitutional but he fully supports it.


I guess American politics is somewhat complicated. Just correct me when I'm wrong.


How about 8 years of none of Paul's fears ever actually manifesting? That enough of a correction?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by CynicalWabbit
 


You do realize that this became a federal law in 2003 when Congress passed it, minus Ron Paul, and Bush signed it into law don't you. Seems that federal control has had no negative effects on it.


Except the feds don't control it the states administer it as has already been said several times.... Sigh!
edit on 11-8-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Which is exactly why Ron Paul was wrong with his fear mongery vote against the bill.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




How about this…

Let’s say at some time in the future the U.S. government is about to be bankrupt. They hastily raise the debt ceiling so they can borrow more money. However in the after math of this there is a desperate need to cut funds to various government programs to help reduce this staggering deficit.

Now we have some emergency congress sessions to find ways to do this. Some senator comes up with the idea to cut some funding to the Department of Justice. So now the DoJ has to find ways to make up for this funding. So they make a small change to the amber alert funds as “We do not need to fund this as it is only used in rare occasions. So they cut some funding, and remove some of the switchboard operator’s jobs.

Now an emergency arises, and all hands are called in to stop a nationwide spree of kidnapping, however there are not enough operators to man this system in this current heightened state of activity, and people are now running on no sleep and mistakes are made.

Yes I can see exactly how this being a federal program can hurt. Obviously this is a made up scenario but it is very possible. With the amount of money the government needs to cut in annual spending it has to come from somewhere. And programs like this may get a little trim that seems harmless at first, and then only becomes an issue when the program is really put to the test at a later date. Thus, Paul’s original vote is still valid, and in no way was voting to "not protect the children," As they were being protected very well already. This is just one more thing for government to spend money on that it does not need to be. The system indeed worked fine before, and it is indeed working fine after the actual vote to make it federal, however what was the gain in doing so? Nothing, it was working before. But now it is susceptible to being destroyed in the inevitable government downsizing that this country will see in the near future.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by dadgad
Well apparently programs can exist without being 'federal'. He is saying that the Amber program has been very effective the way it is and according to him to make it 'federal' will diminish the effectiveness the program has been showing.


That does nothing to answer my question. I want to know why Ron Paul would say out loud that he refuses to vote for something because it is unconstitutional but he fully supports it.


I guess American politics is somewhat complicated. Just correct me when I'm wrong.


How about 8 years of none of Paul's fears ever actually manifesting? That enough of a correction?


From what I understand about it mr.Paul actually does support the program. But only in it's current form. Meaning that he wishes to see it's continuity. What he doesn't support is turning it into a federal program. He has a set of reasons for that laid down in the text you quoted.

It's just a matter of different ideology. From your words I assume that you are under the impression that federalizing the program will increase it's effectiveness, while mr.Paul believes the contrary to be true.




How about 8 years of none of Paul's fears ever actually manifesting? That enough of a correction?


That is an 'ideological' and 'personal' dispute between you and mr.Paul.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I never said it is not worth the money, how did you come to this conclusion? Just read the post, it's not up for interpretation. 26 states had already set up their Amber Alert systems. The remaining states were given 25mil to help set up their systems, follow? Did those 26 states get 25mil as well? If not, then tax payers in those 26 states paid for their Amber Alert systems themselves and helped pay for the remaining states' systems. So how you got that I don't think it's worth it, is beyond me. Don't those states care about their kids enough to fund it themselves like the other 26 states did?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


No she is saying this has been federalized for 8 years now, and with no ill effects. This bill was passed back in 2003 or so. Even without Paul’s vote.

And she is correct. There has been no detriment to this program so far in the 8 years it has been federal. However it has had no real benefit either. So the original “NO” vote is still a valid vote. The program was fine the way it was, and now it is just more expense to the Federal Government for no additional benefit to the program.


****EDIT

Actually there has been one improvement made after making it a Fed. Program. This is that all States now participate. However this may have happened anyway and indeed could have been made to happen without the need to make it federal. The Fed. Govt. could have just given the states the cash to set it up, and left the funding of the operations to the individual states. And now in an apparent argument against myself (which it is not really) the states themselves are going bankrupt (California) so the states can cut the funding to the program just as the Feds could. All in all the same argument stands. The program needs to be funded from somewhere. I personally have no problems with it in the hands of the feds or in the hands of the state either way works just as well, and has just as many problems. But that is not the topic of this thread it is just what it has degraded into. The topic is that Paul supposedly “Voted to not protect children from harm” which is ridiculous. However the fact that it is now federal has in no way Seriously harmed or helped this program.
edit on 11-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
From what I understand about it mr.Paul actually does support the program. But only in it's current form. Meaning that he wishes to see it's continuity. What he doesn't support is turning it into a federal program. He has a set of reasons for that laid down in the text you quoted.




Its "current form" is that of the federal program Paul voted against.

So which is it? He voted against something he supports, again?


It's just a matter of different ideology. From your words I assume that you are under the impression that federalizing the program will increase it's effectiveness, while mr.Paul believes the contrary to be true.


Actually that would make it a debate between Mr. Paul and reality.





How about 8 years of none of Paul's fears ever actually manifesting? That enough of a correction?


That is an 'ideological' and 'personal' dispute between you and mr.Paul.


Well this has been as productive as slamming my head into a wall.
IT IS A FEDERAL PROGRAM THIS VOTE WAS 8 YEARS AGO.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by dadgad
 




Thanks for correcting me.


What's left to say? I guess TS could consider laying down his ideological differences and general opinion on the issue instead.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by Kitilani
 




How about this…

Let’s say at some time in the future the U.S. government is about to be bankrupt. They hastily raise the debt ceiling so they can borrow more money. However in the after math of this there is a desperate need to cut funds to various government programs to help reduce this staggering deficit.

Now we have some emergency congress sessions to find ways to do this. Some senator comes up with the idea to cut some funding to the Department of Justice. So now the DoJ has to find ways to make up for this funding. So they make a small change to the amber alert funds as “We do not need to fund this as it is only used in rare occasions. So they cut some funding, and remove some of the switchboard operator’s jobs.

Now an emergency arises, and all hands are called in to stop a nationwide spree of kidnapping, however there are not enough operators to man this system in this current heightened state of activity, and people are now running on no sleep and mistakes are made.

Yes I can see exactly how this being a federal program can hurt. Obviously this is a made up scenario but it is very possible. With the amount of money the government needs to cut in annual spending it has to come from somewhere. And programs like this may get a little trim that seems harmless at first, and then only becomes an issue when the program is really put to the test at a later date. Thus, Paul’s original vote is still valid, and in no way was voting to "not protect the children," As they were being protected very well already. This is just one more thing for government to spend money on that it does not need to be. The system indeed worked fine before, and it is indeed working fine after the actual vote to make it federal, however what was the gain in doing so? Nothing, it was working before. But now it is susceptible to being destroyed in the inevitable government downsizing that this country will see in the near future.


I am more than curious why in your scenario the states did not pick up the slack when these cuts were made?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
This thread has a very misleading title and is clearly just a futile attempt to demonize the only politician in America that will restore this country to greatness. OP, you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that big brother is NOT who we the people need to rely on. Bigger government equates to bigger problems. These programs should only be run by independent states, more federalized programs just leads to socialism. Would you rather live in a free republic, or a socialist state that creates a false sense of security for yourself?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I see nothing wrong with what he said. You're being all emotional and letting that get in the way of reason and logic. This is about the Federal govt knowing their place and the states rights and responsibility. It's people like you that would support giving up freedoms in the midst of chaos in the name of better security.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Well, not to get into any conflict with you, as I agree with you for the most part. But the Fact in my scenario is it is Fedral, and now the states have no people trained to do this, as it was taken out of thier hands. But as I also stated, states are going bankrupt as well, and this exact scenario could unfold exactly as laid out even if the program had not been made fed. As I said, there has been no real harm, and no real help in making it so.
edit on 11-8-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
@ TS

Yes. I misread. (sorry)

Nonetheless my arguments are still valid. You are in ideological dispute with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul basically has different idea's on how to effectively run this program. This does not mean he 'doesn't care about protecting children'. That is nothing but slander.

So if you want to bring your point across, which is your disagreement with his idea's, why not consider doing it in a more correct way?
edit on 11-8-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I think his fear is...yet another Federal Program for the to screw up or gain control over families and children with. The Federal System seems to always start out with a benign pitch and then end in a tyrannical policy. Put this idea under a constitutional program that is run by the people and then we can talk.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbc650mike
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I never said it is not worth the money, how did you come to this conclusion?

From you going claiming the signs were not being utilized effectively enough and someone should have gotten a reimbursement. That is why I asked about the cost/benefit analysis. Did you take into account the added cost of utilizing them constantly to report a variety of crimes? Did you take into account the noise to signal ratio that would be skewed by such a thing? Seems all you mentioned was what else they could be used for and who should have gotten money back. I guess I missed something.

Just read the post, it's not up for interpretation. 26 states had already set up their Amber Alert systems. The remaining states were given 25mil to help set up their systems, follow? Did those 26 states get 25mil as well? If not, then tax payers in those 26 states paid for their Amber Alert systems themselves and helped pay for the remaining states' systems.

Make that argument for me then. Tell me you are the guy that makes that phone call.
"Sorry, Mrs. Smith that your son was kidnapped from school today but the taxpayers in some other states do not think it is fair that your state is too poor for an AMBER Alert system. Life is all about fair."

So how you got that I don't think it's worth it, is beyond me. Don't those states care about their kids enough to fund it themselves like the other 26 states did?

Why you think I could speak for a number of states is beyond me. I get that you do not think it is worth it because you plainly stated that the signs should be used for more things without regard to what that might actually cost to do.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Well, not to get into any conflict with you, as I agree with you for the most part.


I did not ask to try and get into a conflict. It was an important part of giving you a thought out and informed response.

But the Fact in my scenario is it is Fedral, and now the states have no people trained to do this, as it was taken out of thier hands.

But that is not true. The AA system is actually handled on a very local level. The people are all in place. When it was federalized and they gave states money for the system, that money was not for plane tickets to Washington.

But as I also stated, states are going bankrupt as well, and this exact scenario could unfold exactly as laid out even if the program had not been made fed.

Which is why I asked about the states not stepping in to pick up the slack.
If it was purely state funded and the states ran out of money to fund it, then they would have to go hat in hand to Washington and ask for it to be funded or just go without. Now there is already that redundancy built in. The federal government stops funding it, the states can then start. The states run out of money to fund it too, then there is no one to fund it and being federalized or not will not help.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by gsmith524
This thread has a very misleading title and is clearly just a futile attempt to demonize the only politician in America that will restore this country to greatness. OP, you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that big brother is NOT who we the people need to rely on. Bigger government equates to bigger problems. These programs should only be run by independent states, more federalized programs just leads to socialism. Would you rather live in a free republic, or a socialist state that creates a false sense of security for yourself?


Why do I have to keep asking what "bigger problems" came with federalizing this program?
I get the whole "we do not need anyone doing anything for us" attitude but it does not always seem realistic to me.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



You have totally missed my point. This Scenario is pointing to future cutbacks where these people’s jobs are removed. And I then went on to point out that even if it had remained a state run program, these exact same cuts could be made, and the exact same problem could occur. So the point is that making it federal did not help the program, nor did it hurt it.

But this is totally off topic the Point to this thread is not who should fund it, but that some politician “Voted to not protect children from harm.” The debate on who should fund it is just what the thread has degenerated into. As no matter who funds it, states or Feds, it will be just as effective. The only real benefit so far is all states have it in place now, but there is no way to argue this would not have happened anyway. The entire topic about state vs. Fed. can never be answered, as there is no way to know what would have happened had it not been made Federal. Again people are making too much of the debate as that is not the issue. There are pro’s and Con’s to either setup. All of this debate is in hind sight, and is meaningless. The topic here is a vote that happened 8 years ago with no benefit of seeing what has happened since this time. And I still say the vote of “no” was a good vote. As there is no reason for this to be federal as it was indeed working fine as a state program. And it may have indeed, and in my opinion would have, spread to all states as they saw how effective it was over the years.

And before anybody gets all political on me, no I do not support Paul any more than I support all the other politicians. If they make a good call they make a good call. Tomorrow Paul may vote on something I do not agree with, and I will be right there with the others in saying it was a bad vote. I am not defending his vote here out of blind allegiance, where as the OP was indeed bashing the vote out of blind hatred. The OP tries to twist the vote into showing that Paul hates kids and is a terrible person. When in fact, the vote does no such thing. It was all about his belief that the Federal Government is too big, and does not need to be bigger. And in this case he was most likely right. The states could have continued to run it fine and almost assuredly at less cost.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Since when has 1 single president changed anything for the better? I support ron paul, but I think that if pushing for smaller gov is really his goal, then he will not be allowed to make it as pres, or he will be shot. Too many big players in the game for 1 guy to destroy them all.

It would be nice though.

And I love these threads" ron paul voted to not protect children from harm" what a total bs title. What it should say is "I'm lying to you to get you to view my thread"




top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join