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.
Originally posted by kozmo
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.
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by filosophia
So your kid get's abducted from a playground or somewhere and you wouldn't want every available resource to get that child back?
I find that hard to believe.
Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by kozmo
Oh I have ZERO doubt that you agree with Ron Paul. Like all of his fans.
Yeah, you know, "state's rights." Like his son, Rand, espouses. States should be allowed to ignore the Civil Rights Act. That the federal government has no right to prohibit racial discrimination.
Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by kozmo
Oh I have ZERO doubt that you agree with Ron Paul. Like all of his fans.
Yeah, you know, "state's rights." Like his son, Rand, espouses. States should be allowed to ignore the Civil Rights Act. That the federal government has no right to prohibit racial discrimination.
Originally posted by kozmo
Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by kozmo
Oh I have ZERO doubt that you agree with Ron Paul. Like all of his fans.
Yeah, you know, "state's rights." Like his son, Rand, espouses. States should be allowed to ignore the Civil Rights Act. That the federal government has no right to prohibit racial discrimination.
You are becoming notorious for non-sequiturs! You'd do well to REALLY read and understand the State's Rights movement and, more to the point, Ron Paul's reasoning behind his positions. Paul does not believe that racial discrimination should be prohibited, he believes that NO RACIAL GROUP should receive preferential treatment based on their race. Example: hiring quotas or college admission quotas. As the Preamble aptly points out "All men are created equal". That is unless the Federal Government is involved... then some men are a little more equal than others and deserve special considerations at the expense of others.
Nice try though. Anything else you need cleared up?
Originally posted by romanmel
Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by kozmo
Oh I have ZERO doubt that you agree with Ron Paul. Like all of his fans.
Yeah, you know, "state's rights." Like his son, Rand, espouses. States should be allowed to ignore the Civil Rights Act. That the federal government has no right to prohibit racial discrimination.
Really?
So, since the Federal Government has be "in charge" of prohibiting racial discrimination for about fifty years, how is it that the unemployment rate for blacks is two times that of white people? When will you realize the Federal Government is a failure at most everything it is "in charge" of?
The best government is the one nearest the people
Originally posted by ClintK
It's nonsense that the federal is a failure in most everything. That's a laughable right wing cliche.
Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by ClintK
It's nonsense that the federal is a failure in most everything. That's a laughable right wing cliche.
Yes, every bit as funny as a $14.5 TRILLION dollar debt. I'm laughing so hard they could hear me in China, if they weren't laughing even harder.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by ClintK
That's exactly the problem with the term "state's rights." That's exactly what I meant when I said it's a confused term that has been bandied about over the last 3 decades. Discrimination is not prohibited by the Constitution. We had the chance to pass the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 1970s and it fell short. Therefor, in the minds of many "state's rights" advocates, that is a right reserved for states.
Again, it's a confused term. People interpret it any way they want. Do some research on it. You obviously have your own interpretation of what it means. Other people would disagree with your interpretation.
Nice try though. Anything else you need cleared up?
Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
reply to post by ClintK
No, it means they're a flaming success. My goodness how well everything runs. So efficient and cost effective. They're such serious stewards of our money.
Oh, wait. It's all their money. We just get to keep what they let us have, which is way too much for us. Damn tax cuts ruined everything. If only they had MORE.
They've really done a number on you.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.