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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
To the OP: when I first read your post I kind of snickered and thought "well, you'll be heavily flamed and get very few stars." You've exposed another tangent of the nutty side of Ron Paul -- which is pretty big side.

Ron Paul is the darling of this site, and when he gets criticized on facts, his loyal legions here either go into denial, try to come up with some tortured logic that explains what he said or throw a temper tantrum.

They're just like any other contemporary American political faction. What's sad is that they actually think they're independent thinkers. If they were really independent thinkers then they wouldn't treat Paul like he's the son of god who can speak only truth. They might agree with him 85 percent of the time, but not the ridiculous 110 percent you see in the majority of his followers.

The Amber Alert thing is a typical example. Confronted with what Paul said, their immediate reaction is not to objectively examine what he said, but rather to figure out how they could argue he's right.

Not that he's any worse than any other political faction these days. At least he's not a fraud. But, yeah, he has a pretty big nutty side.

Ron Paul is like disco music: it developed a large following for a few years, but ultimately it was just a fad. And for most of the generation that endured it, they now look back with sort of a chuckle and say, "remember when we used to take that garbage seriously?"




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
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)


The point is that the State and Local govs are in charge of it now and it is great system as is.

Why change that?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Parents should be responsible for their own kids. If people are losing their kids, they're obviously doing something wrong.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
You complain about Obama, when you're state senators and reps the ones who vote every bill.. And you think it should be left to them?




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


It wouldnt be left to them......the do not work in the State goverment....there are Feds. you know that right?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


They are state senators and state representatives... They are the people you're state sends to represent you're states ideals and interests to the FEDs.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


but they ARENT involved in State government. They dont make State laws. There is a whole other level of senators within each state that make state laws. the people who go to DC have nothing to do with this.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


State Senators and US Senators are not the same thing.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Each U.S. state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. I get what you are trying to say but to pretend these people would not be involved in those states pretty nieve.

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

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



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and most of his policies are fair and logical.


However, some ideas of his are moronic. We get it: He's a Constitutionalist...but that doesn't always mean it's a good thing. The document is outdated and the Founders were advocates of Slavery.

Ron Paul, you are a good guy but sometimes I wonder about you, you silly old man you.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


Yes, agreed. Each state has 2 US Senators that rep their given state to vote on FEDERAL LAWS.

Each state also has it own government (I dont think you know this) which is made up of State Senators that vote on STATE LAWS.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by MrOysterhead
 


Each U.S. state is represented by two senators, regardless of population. I get what you are trying to say but to pretend these people would not be involved in those states pretty nieve.

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

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


Sure they are involved. The rep the will of the people of their state on a Federal platform. But they dont make State laws.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Again Ron Paul just shows you that his head is in the right place. America needs less broad government and more local government. I do however agree that two time offenders need a possible life sentence to prevent any further harm. But I'm sure the guys in DC can figure out how to put that in place without the Amber alert.

Ron Paul 2012!




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK
To the OP: when I first read your post I kind of snickered and thought "well, you'll be heavily flamed and get very few stars." You've exposed another tangent of the nutty side of Ron Paul -- which is pretty big side.

Ron Paul is the darling of this site, and when he gets criticized on facts, his loyal legions here either go into denial, try to come up with some tortured logic that explains what he said or throw a temper tantrum.

They're just like any other contemporary American political faction. What's sad is that they actually think they're independent thinkers. If they were really independent thinkers then they wouldn't treat Paul like he's the son of god who can speak only truth. They might agree with him 85 percent of the time, but not the ridiculous 110 percent you see in the majority of his followers.

The Amber Alert thing is a typical example. Confronted with what Paul said, their immediate reaction is not to objectively examine what he said, but rather to figure out how they could argue he's right.

Not that he's any worse than any other political faction these days. At least he's not a fraud. But, yeah, he has a pretty big nutty side.

Ron Paul is like disco music: it developed a large following for a few years, but ultimately it was just a fad. And for most of the generation that endured it, they now look back with sort of a chuckle and say, "remember when we used to take that garbage seriously?"


Let me help you understand what Ron Paul said without any "tortured logic" and sans unneccessary insults, unlike your post.

First of all Ron Paul is a STATE'S RIGHTS candidate. He believes that the role of the Federal Government is limited by the Constitution and those specific duties not allocated to the Federal Government by the Constitution become the domain of the state - and he is correct. Simply read the 10th Ammendment and it details it very thoroughly.

The histrionics of the OP are the "Tortured logic".
Stating that something should be done at the state and local level does not denote that Ron Paul doesn't want children protected, as offered in the initital premise - which is inherently flawed logic. He stated that it would be BEST for that system to be operated at local levels.

Hope this helps you make sense of it.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and most of his policies are fair and logical.


The document is outdated and the Founders were advocates of Slavery.



Better check your facts, the majority of the founders were NOT slave owners. And the document is in no way outdated. It's interpretations are simply bastardized which makes it dysfunctional. If Congress, the Judiciary and the President would hold literal to words contained in the document, it would work exactly as intended. Sadly, all of the lawyer/politicans have worked tirelessly at killing it slowly with legal precendent.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 

Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and most of his policies are fair and logical.


However, some ideas of his are moronic. We get it: He's a Constitutionalist...but that doesn't always mean it's a good thing. The document is outdated and the Founders were advocates of Slavery.

Ron Paul, you are a good guy but sometimes I wonder about you, you silly old man you.

You said...you said...HERESY!!

More seriously, though, I'm curious as to which ideas you view as moronic, and how you feel the constitution is outdated, exactly? It has in-built provisions to allow for it's own amending, and is generally hailed around the world as the most sublime governmental contract ever devised by man.

Not looking for a debate, just curious as to your views here. I see the constitution as a document intended to protect our freedom and restrain our rulers to prevent government abuses/excessive authority (too bad we've been neglectful and let them do end-runs around it anyway, eh...), and Ron Paul as a man who takes his oath of office to defend and uphold it seriously - and isn't that pretty much the whole point of us still making our elected official swear an oath to their contract with the people?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Ron Paul votes no on 99 percent of bills. His argument would be the federal government does not need to protect the children, that is the job of the parents. As a parent I agree.
edit on 10-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Agreed. Beside that, states can agree to share information and develop an amber alert system without spending federal tax dollars on yet another bloated, wasteful department. How about a private nonprofit? Couldn't they do the same thing?

It's interesting how many people automatically look to the federal government to solve all the problems of the world, when the federal government does nothing of the sort. Where is good old American ingenuity? Has that been federalized too?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 

Ron Paul is like disco music: it developed a large following for a few years, but ultimately it was just a fad. And for most of the generation that endured it, they now look back with sort of a chuckle and say, "remember when we used to take that garbage seriously?"


That is, quite possibly, the saddest thing to consider that I've heard in awhile. I know for some it might be different, but to me, Ron Paul is just the messenger, and if the message ever stops being taken seriously, then I will be a saddened man since the message is precious. We as a nation (I suppose as a world, too, but whatever) have slipped very far from the envisioned intent of an experiment in liberty, and Ron Paul speaks to the part of me that hopes we can get back to that track. To see the liberty movement fade away would be almost unbearable as I don't like what I see in the world around me.

Anyhow, shifting gears back to Ron Paul supporters - I have to agree somewhat. It's not all of us, but you'll have to excuse at least some of those who are over-eager. Most are likely young, and it's an exciting thing to get caught up in that sometimes distracts from a rational review of things and desire to look beyond their idealized perception.

Take care.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK
Ron Paul is like disco music: it developed a large following for a few years, but ultimately it was just a fad. And for most of the generation that endured it, they now look back with sort of a chuckle and say, "remember when we used to take that garbage seriously?"


Liberty is NOT a FAD.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Dang, don't know why this response hasn't received more stars!

Love it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join