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: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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.


You know what? I don't need your help to "understand" Ron Paul. I KNOW he is a "state's rights" advocate, a confused term that has been bandied about over the last 3 decades and is applied selectively.

Did I say "Ron Paul doesn't want children protected..."? No. But go ahead and put words in my mouth I never said. This is exactly --EXACTLY-- what I mean about how Ron Paul fans react.

But PLEASE don't EVER consider the notion that a national Amber Alert system might be more effective than a state-by-state system. Just assume everything out of Ron Paul's mouth is infallible.

Oh, and I'm glad you wrote a post "sans unnecessary insults" while responding in a very condescending tone.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 



Sensative much?


If you knew that Paul was state's rights guy, then why the vitriole of your post?

Also, before I open a session of school, please share with me your definition of "State's rights" and some examples of how it it has been "Bandied about" selectively.

This should get quite interesting...

ETA: BTW, I DID consider a national Amber Alert system and concluded, in agreement with Senator Paul, that the system is most effectively administered on a local level.
edit on 11-8-2011 by kozmo because: ETA



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

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.



You just said it so well!!! When the government get involved that's just what they use...EVERY AVAILABLE RESOURCE!!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

Really??? He isnt saying we shouldn't protect children... hes saying we need to keep programs out of the federal government, which I agree with. Stop trying to put words into peoples mouth.



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

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



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


All I have to ask of you, my friend, after reading the 13 pages of this thread, is why do you deflect people's direct questioning of your views and your reactions to the proof that they bring to the table about Mr. Paul? Thus far, what I've seen from you is answering questions with very ineffective, childish, and rhetorical comments. If you're going to bring pallets to a bonfire, make sure you have enough piss to put it out.
edit on 11-8-2011 by Austin316 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This is one of the reasons things have gotten screwed up in the first place. Some people say so what if it's not in the constitution, it's for a good cause. The Federal government was never created to handle things like this and does a very poor job when they try. This is the job of the state. So it's ok to ignore the constitution as long as it's something you think is good? I hate to tell you, but they can sell all of their evil plans as good or necessary. They do it all the time and already the federal government is doing things it was never meant to. The federal government has been taking away states rights for years, which is what they want to do. I don't want a centralized all powerful federal government.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ron Paul voted to not protect Children from Harm ?

It's clearly obvious that this is symbolic of a a concerted effort to demean Ron Paul.

What next ?

Ron Paul plays regular golf with Iran's President Ahmadinejad




As I have posted before there is a concerted effort to squash any non status quo movement here in the US and on ATS.

The FBI is out to infiltrate and squash all of these organizations...just look at their past modus operandi.

They infiltrated The Mafia, The Klan, The Black Panthers, The Unions....now it is The 911 Truthers and the Tea Party movement.....as well as Candidates such as Ron Paul.

We apparently aren't allowed to have a 3rd Party or a Candidate who isn't bought and paid for by the Rockefellers and the Powers That Be.

That's even more reason to vote Ron Paul. As a single finger salute to the Powers That Be !


edit on 11-8-2011 by nh_ee because: Single Finger Salute to The Powers That Be ~~!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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?


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?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

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


Any REAL evidence of discrimination? Statistics do not equal causes. It's nonsense that the federal is a failure in most everything. That's a laughable right wing cliche.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Wow, thank you for the unbiased heads up there, OP. I did not know that Ron Paul actually cooked and ate children on a regular basis, thank goodness you pointed that out!!!!!!!

As everyone has already pointed out, the continuation of this thread is pointless, the OP clearly had an agenda, and has been called out on it in droves. Nothing more to really get into here.....

I don't even like Ron Paul, but the premise of this thread was transparent and very ignorant.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
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.



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

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.


Sorry, that doesn't mean the federals are a failure at everything, or even most things. And I would add, most of that debt was accrued because of tax cuts.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
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.



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

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?


Sure, you can clear up why you continue to connect issues that have no connection; these are called non-sequiturs and you commit them regularly. There is absolutely no "problem" with State's Rights unless you are the Federal Government who regularly attemps to abrogate them!

I think you confuse the role of the Constitution in our Republican form of government and the role of the legislature. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government and it clearly defines that which is governed by the state and that which shall be governed by the Federal Government. Those powers not SPECIFICALLY tasked to the Federal Government remain the sole authority of the several states. The legislature is the body that passes laws and regulations, in addition to coining money and setting budgets. As a result, the legislature is free to pass a law banning racial discrimination, and they have under numerous statutes.

That being said, those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government are the right of the state. Just as with gay marriage, it is a state's rights issue, not a federal government issue. It is only a confused term to those who do not understand the Constitution. If one would take the time to read some of the writings offered by the nation's founding fathers, the exact interpretation of State's Rights is very simple and elementary.



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

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.


How have they "done a number" on me just because I don't agree with you? I know the debt is a problem. I was pointing it out WAYYYYY back in the 1980s when Reagan's tax cuts started causing alarmingly large deficits. We needed to raise taxes. It wasn't possible because the right wing was in control. So the deficits got bigger and bigger until Clinton.

And I would point out, many state governments are FAR more dysfunctional than the federals. Also, many governments around the world are currently facing far more serious debt problems than our country is.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


"It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography."

I agree with Ron Paul, but I also believe that this part of the bill leaves door wide open for Fed Gov to use this excuse to tred on individual's right to privacy, jst as Patriot act has done.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
This one of the things so admirable about Ron Paul he always cuts right through the "save the children" BS and zeros in on the real intent of the bills and votes no when they attack freedom under the guise of saving the children or protecting the public when they do nothing of the kind! Would that more Americans could comprehend that instead of emotionally latching on to the lying rhetoric used to sell these BS bills!



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join