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: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Open your mind up to what Ron Paul actually believes.

He would probably back his explanation by saying that with the federal government being based in Washington, and the state and city governments being based closer to the people themselves, the local governments would have more of a direct impact.

Ron Paul has always advocated less federal power and more state/citizen strength. It would be wrong to believe that he doesn't want to protect children, seeing as he proposed a bill a couple weeks ago that would abolish all the federally created gun free safe zones (mostly near schools) where it's a crime to possess a gun. In all reality, criminals who want to cause harm don't care about not having guns in school zones, and, therefore people can actually protect the children from criminals if they can have their own guns.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 





I'm sorry but protecting children should be bound by no jurisdiction whatsoever and should be a priority no matter what any piece of paper says.


oh? tell that to NATO when those bombs that were dropped in Libya killed children..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by byeluvolk
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.


That is exactly the point I got, I just do not agree with your premise. The federal government adds another layer of financial protection that was not there when it was only state funded. I am not sure how adding funding does not help. I got your point though I thought that was what I responded to. I am just saying the same thing differently here.


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.


Actually that is EXACTLY why I find this thread so fascinating.

This is 8 years old and look at most of the posts jumping to defend Ron Paul over the thread title. Some people are so blinded by ideology that they will just argue against reality to no end. Some people hate the government no matter what, even while driving on its nice roads. Some people hate the Federal government no matter what because their state is just awesome or whatever. So they let this hate make their argument for them instead of understanding that sometimes, it is actually a good thing. Just look at the arguments they are making.

'Ron Paul is right. It is just fine the way it is. Federalizing it will ruin it!!!!!!'

Yeah that makes a ton of sense considering it was federalized 8 years ago. They are just too eager to yell government bad!!!! to even give a moments thought to what they are saying. They like it the way it is, yet it is actually already federalized. So these anti-federal government folks do not want any changes to this well run federal program.

How you claim there is no benefit all while acknowledging that half the states only got it because of it being federalized makes no sense to me. If it was just state funded and the states ran out of money, it gets unfunded. Being funded by the federal government means that when they cannot afford it anymore, it falls back onto the states. I am not sure about you but a $25 Million seed fund and a state funded safety net sure sound like benefits to me.


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.


I just think Paul says some cooky things and sometimes I wonder what planet he is on but other than that he is harmless. Then again, I do not see anything in the OP that claims he hates kids. Perhaps the OP got some of you to see things that are not there with just a simple title?

Look how many people think this vote is about to happen.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by robyn
OP --- You have provided a incomplete and inaccurate characterization of Dr. Paul's position vis a vis a national Amber Alert system. You were obviously attempting to inflame and mislead anyone who reads your post.

Either you dug out your copy of Alinsky's "Rules for Radcals" or you ae training for a spot on MSNBC.

Ichip91.wordpress.com...


Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.


Sometimes the "good" is the enemy of the "best".

A complete reading of Dr. Paul's address to the House would explain why the bill, although sounding noble would in fact potentially endanger the children it seeks to protect.

Also, as is often the case in DC, other legislation was snuck into the bill.

ronpaulforum.com...

Joseph Liden sneakily snuck the Rave Act into a child abduction bill called the Amber Alert. This basically made the Rave bill easy to pass because anyone against it was going against child kidnappings. It was a sneaky move made by a guy bought out by music industry moguls. This is some reasons of why music is so controlled by Clearchannel and Viacom because of people like Biden.


Deeply embedded in the Amber Alert Act is a new law, which makes organizers of nearly every public event liable for prison time and fines up to $250,000, if drugs are found on the premises. That portion, which has already been given the moniker the "Rave Act," was buried in the Amber Alert bill by Democratic Senator Joe Biden. It's called the Rave Act because Biden believes those events promote drug use.


The bill also opened the door for increased federal surveillance.



I'm reposting this because the motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance". Dr. Paul explained his reasoning for voting against this.

The bill as written would do more harm than good.

Dr. Paul cares deeply about chuldren and saving the country that they will be born in, grow up in and inherit fron us. To imply otherwise is ignorant.
edit on 11-8-2011 by robyn because: spelling



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I would just like to say that I only flagged this thread so people could see Kro for the obvious shill he is. Get a real job man. That new avatar isn't fooling anyone.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Plugged because: Edit



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


He's right. He's Not against protecting the children, he's against something ( anything) becoming a federal program when it should not be. The Federal Government was Not set up for those purposes.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



I was saying that in my opinion the rest of the states would have eventually come around, either due to public support or pressure from the surrounding states. Thus eventually all the states would have been involved in the end. And we would be where we are right now. All states participating yet no federal involvement. The same goal reached just with a lesser degree or no federal involvement. Mind you I am not dead set against the federal run program; I would just be “more” in favor of the state run setup. As I agree with Paul in that the government is far too big, Is far too expensive, and needs drastic cuts in spending, and thus programs like this will either be put back in the hands of the states or suffer from minimized budgets.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
He made the right decision. Perhaps the part of the bill about adding an additional employee to the payroll was a good idea but the other stuff about increasing punishments was bologna.

Its the parents job to keep their kids safe and not the government.

This is another case of people making a crime out to be like murder. People, its sex. While its certainly a crime for a person to kidnap a minor, most often times these cases are about spousal arguments and don't lead to sex.

Again, its the PARENTS JOB to protect there children and not the governments. Why do these sickos infatuated with kid sex always infuse there perversions into every aspect of life. Makes you wonder



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


HAHA!!!

I got about half way through this and had immediately scroll down to see the comments. I personally think you're an idiot if you came to the conclusion that Ron Paul hates children. Absoilutely priceless. Posts like these, and the epic put downs int he form of the replies, is the reason I joined this site.

Ron Paul is a legend. He is a man with integrity and as someone else pointed out, he has a clean 30 yeard track record.

Star for all the guys who set OP straight



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 
I too would have voted against the Amber Alter System as presented by the Federal Government. The States can do this without the Federal Government's involvement and use of the system for other more sinister "Big Brother" uses, as is the case. I have also added the OP to my watch list.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
"Well Mr. Smith, it seems that the people that snatched your daughter and ran have had more than enough time to leave the state by now. We could issue a federal Amber alert."

"No, no no. States rights and all that. I can just have another daughter."

This is the argument being made in this thread?


OK, so what point are you trying to make here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^? If you understand how the current and successful system works?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Typical smear tactic here... Ron Paul loves kids, and he is a great grandfather.. He votes no to lots of things, because he is tired of the way the goverment works.. He thinks things should be ran on state levels, and it's not the goverments job to be in our buisness.. He wants to get rid of income tax...Make a flat tax, and by doing that there would be lots of money coming in.. Plus this would eliminate many gov. unneeded jobs. IRS ring a bell? We wouldn't need them if we had no income tax.. He is for the Constitution are you or do you want what happens all over the world? Total control, and entitlements to people.. That makes a bad cocktail for riots..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
According to the Op, " It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography..." So, all LEO's would have to do is brand you a "person of interest" in oder to invade my or anyone else's privacy.

It is pretty obvious what the goal of the OP was in posting this thread. Fearful of those who stand for citizen's rights over BigGov despots, one is presented a hatchet-job on Ron Paul.



.....
......



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Your post = epic fail.

Did you even read what you quoted? Not only did he cite the effectiveness of the Ambert Alert system, but said that the reason for this was because STATE and LOCAL officials manage it, NOT the federal government.

I agree with Ron Paul on many things and this is one of them. The FEDERAL government was given charge for several items: defense, general welfare, etc.. So, when he says that it isn't in the Constitution, he's right.

These types of things ARE best left to State and local officials. Your post is so atypical of the brainwashed masses who feel that the federal government ought to be taking care of you cradle to grave.

Wake up. Ron Paul did not vote against children (ironic given that he is an OB physician), but rather a vote against granting powers to the federal government not ascribed to it in the Constitution.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
11 pages of replies and only generated 9 flags and 7 stars??? have we been botted? can we force the op to take a human verification test? type the letters as you see them lol. my god even a broken clock is right twice a day.even a nazi skin head has some followers. im not saying the op reeks but was it a government holiday?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 

Is it less effective now than it was a decade ago or more?


THAT'S a good question I'm still waiting for Kro (or someone else) to answer on one of my responses to him earlier. For this thread to be valid and his critiques of Ron Paul's position here to carry weight, he needs to show that Federal coordination of the system has resulted in net improvements to the system and its effectiveness.

So far, I haven't seen any information on a cost/benefit analysis of post-2003 AMBER Alert and the attached legislation as compared to the effectiveness and success rate of the programs before the 2003 legislation. Kro's made claims here about Ron Paul being wrong, so the burden of proof is upon him to validate that.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
If the Federal Government was in charg of the Amber Alert Sytem, parents of missing kids would probably have to fill out 50 pages of paper work, wait in line for hours only to find out that they're in the wrong line, etc.

Nothing on the Federal level moves faster than a snail's pace (remember FEMA after Katrina?). I agree with Ron Paul. Let the local government handle it.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
States rights people really o.o

I find it odd they support the state so much and are against the FED.. Just remember all these states broke and scrambling for FED grants! Just what we need, the laws changing drastic from state to state, corrupt mayors who can do what they want as minigods.. And you complain about Obama? Meh, you just want to compound the problem!
"Oh if my state where in charge it would all be ok!" Yeah right, those are the same people who have been breaking the system... And you want them in charge? Really?
edit on 11-8-2011 by ShogunAssassins because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Sorry, I'm with Paul on this one.

Why not let the local governments enact a bill such as this? Have you not learned your lesson from FEMA, DoHS or other Federal Agencies (or singular positions) that do nothing but bumblefugde everything they seem to touch?

I'm sorry, but things are better left to state and county governments to regulate.

If Congress wants to come up with a VOLUNTEER board or committee to oversee the implementation of standards ... I'd be all for that. Otherwise ... it's overstepping it's boundaries and more than likely will end up causing more harm than it does benefits.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
OP is another sheeple who feels the federal government has to do everything for them... Sad. Maybe if you knew ANYTHING about Ron Paul you would actually understand that programs such as the Amber Alert are state functions and should not be given to the federal government.

We would all be much better off if ALL the crap that is supposed to be done within the individual states were actually handled by the states instead of the federal government and we would be much better off if idiots didn't take sound bites, hand fed to them by the MSM as gospel and had enough brains to thing for themselves and educate themselves!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join