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: 16
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
"It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. "

BOOM. That is why, WE WANT NO MORE GOVERNMENT WIRE TAPPING. These globalists (including the original poster) want MARTIAL LAW. This thread is an obvious attempt to show Ron Paul as supportive of sex offenders, when the bill itself is an obvious power grab by the DoD and Feds, they just HAD to sneak in that wire tapping clause didn't they?. F***ing globalist scum.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   


I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to do just that. There's a lot of this on ATS and it seems more and more like the mainstream media spin on things. Whether it's left or right leaning users who are doing it they have all learned a lot on how to spin things from the idiot box.


Yer,your not wrong PhantomLimb.
Its getting beyond a joke...

Why hasnt the administators shut this thread down or review it atleast?,its pretty clear the OP has posted information he hasnt even read himself,or misinterpreted the information.Do they even care?

If not,they might as well just shut this site down,because its getting worse and there seems to be more people "trolling" or whatever you want to call it.

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



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


So "this" is a Ron Paul hit piece. Finally stopped laffin. Ladies and Gentlemen if this is how the establishment intends to discredit this man then I think Ron Paul might just be the next President (if only)

As others have pointed out this fine man has delivered over 4000 babies in his tenure as Doctor. Doesn't strike me as a man who doesn't care about children.

Honestly in this time of economic turmoil do we really need yet another costly Government program, I don't think so.

But I digress, I think you are on to something and I encourage you to focus on this as a means to discredit Doctor Paul. I would spare no expense and focus all energies to bring this dramatic conflict to light.

The people should be made aware of just how this man voted on this controversial subject and perhaps also highlight how he has voted in the past on equally contraversial subjects.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I think you need to clue in a little bit. Do you not see the lack of competence in everything the Federal Gov does? I wouldn't place the security of ANYONE I know in their hands as I know they would probably drop the ball as they do with everything else. Come out from under that rock, please!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Sir, you seem to be having a hard time keeping your message straight.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but anyone who has spent any time in the PR/advertising/marketing industry would look at your choice of post headline, and the language and tenor of your responses, and say, unequivocally, that you are just trying to flesh out a straw man argument, because you have a personal issue with Ron Paul and the fact that he calls Republicans out for being just as bought and paid for as Democrats. (...i.e., "professional politicians")

I would be inclined to agree with an "ad man" that might suggest that. Your comments seem very transparent.

You are a Republican, with a strange fixation on using the power of Federal agency to "protect children".

Ideologically speaking, that's pretty weird. Your logic and argument, on their face, appear fallacious... in other words you are "using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument."

Rather than beat this horse to death, why not make it really simple.

Is child safety an issue with a limited shelf life? No... it's not.

Therefore, why don't you just name a 10 to 20 year old initiative of the Federal Government that you can direct our attention to, that has a great history of being well managed, and delivered on it's "original mission" in an efficient and useful way and that would support in a logical way that is absent a fallacious argument, WHY you are correct in your assumptions.

Your support for "helping the children" is sufficiently defended in this thread, to suggest you will be able to mention a well run Federal program with great ease.

If you have no issue with Ron Paul generally, my apologies. Maybe your posts aren't even really there, and I am imagining them


Warm regards



Originally posted by kro32
This is not a Constitutional issue whatsoever and my point was that Ron Paul turned it into one. The Constitution makes no mention either way about actions like this, the States are initiating this action so where is the dilema? It is simply allowing a message to travel across State lines and the States agree with it.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yepper. the fed govs assistance in the Amber Alert system proves once again that our federal government runs pretty well.

Did any of you bother to look at the link on the history of the Amber Alert system?

You can't get that link in fantasia?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Also just read what one of the restrictions on the bill says... "The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. ".

OK so this would mean any image of a child, any ilustration...!! That is exactly what it will be, cause that is what it specifically states.. "VISUAL ILLUSTRATIONs"...!! This could litterally mean any image at all..!!

Can't take pics of your kids enjoying a day at the beach, can't take pics of your kids in the school concert, cant take pics of your childs first steps... Hell, no more children in the movies either..lol You'd be pushing child porn..!!!

So who writes these bills...? Mostly old middle aged busybodies from the bible group, who've never even had kids because they too frigid to take their clothes off to make them,...lol

edit on 8/11/2011 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dasman888
 


NASA took us to the Moon.

We have the best military in the world.

U.S. gov funding has supported most of the great breakthroughs in technology.

NIST is one of the best standards labs on the planet.

The U.S. government is an extremely successful organization, and the only people who claim differently are people living in the land of denial, having been programmed by the con of the free market, supported by wackos like RP.

Meanwhile, just about every corporation in existence has caused massive destruction, many at far greater levels than anything the U.S. gov has done.

And you people want corporations to run the planet (this is what RP and the Mises Institute promotes). That is Foolish Ignorance Beyond All Belief, FIBAB, FUBABs even more messed up younger brother.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


Title implies Ron Paul VOTED to put children in harm.

Failsy.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


This is another form of inflammitory political rhetoric. READ the act. I Gurantee that he did not vote to endanger children. I'm not going to babysit and hold your hand by pointing out the individual parts of this act. If you're really so concerned, read it!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Yeah... as others have said...

My take as well...

***PAID SHILL ALERT***


Originally posted by kro32

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.



This is the bill he voted against:


Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003


Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?


However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. 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.


chip91.wordpress.com...

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. To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.

www.missingkids.com...

Ron Paul for President...yeah ok



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Good for Ron Paul. A Federally mandated Amber alert system is just enlarging the Federal Government more. Let the States mandate their own. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Hey Poppye... I think you missed the part of my inquiry that said:

"...that has a great history of being well managed, and delivered on it's "original mission" in an efficient and useful way." Notice those key words, "well managed" and "efficient"?

What you have done, is provided a list of agencies that are congruent with your belief systems, not those 2 operatives I mentioned above.

Could you point out where I said I supported "corporatism" (aka fascism)? I don't. In fact, many of those agencies you cite have made the corporatist fraudsters rich on the very endeavors you posit as being proof of "well run" government agencies.

NIST might be an exception, although even there you will discover, if you look, that what should be a standardized output of testing data, is derailed by politicization... and that's true now of just about EVERYTHING that comes out of government.

There is no "free market", and hasn't been for many decades. There is only the masquerade of Free Markets that rattles around as a prop for theatrical benefit of so called "conservatives" as well as "liberals" by the whores inside the beltway, for their constituents, the corrupt multi-national corporate welfare recipients and assorted benefactors of the looting of the public treasury.

Politics is theater in the U.S., and nothing more. It is the fist fight "diversion out in front of the bank", that provides the cover for the criminal class to go 'round back and "loot the bank" of all it's money and valuables.




Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by dasman888
 


NASA took us to the Moon.

We have the best military in the world.

U.S. gov funding has supported most of the great breakthroughs in technology.

NIST is one of the best standards labs on the planet.

The U.S. government is an extremely successful organization, and the only people who claim differently are people living in the land of denial, having been programmed by the con of the free market, supported by wackos like RP.

Meanwhile, just about every corporation in existence has caused massive destruction, many at far greater levels than anything the U.S. gov has done.

And you people want corporations to run the planet (this is what RP and the Mises Institute promotes). That is Foolish Ignorance Beyond All Belief, FIBAB, FUBABs even more messed up younger brother.




edit on 11-8-2011 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?


Nice try...

Ron Paul is right, PARENTS need to protect children, not passing ANOTHER bill, making government bigger and making EVERYONE pay more taxes...

You better find something WITH REAL SUBSTANCE if you want to diss Ron Paul...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The 5 Most Popular Safety Laws That Don't Work

This is a Cracked.com article. I found it interesting and amusing. Amber Alert made the list.

I know this is far from a methodical study into the matter but can shed light on an opinion that people are having a hard time grasping.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dasman888
 


Yeah, and the thing you miss is that there is no such thing as a free market, and there never will, because it is unrealistic idealism.

When you compare apples to apples, the U.S. government is the best government in the world, and organizational wise, far superior to most corporations, which in any kind of true market system based on competition, would have died long ago.


Politics is theater in the U.S., and nothing more. It is the fist fight "diversion out in front of the bank", that provides the cover for the criminal class to go 'round back and "loot the bank" of all it's money and valuables.


And sometimes the working class needs to revolt, and strip the super rich of their ill-begotten wealth. RP and his like are first to defend the super rich.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
It's the state/county/city job to make sure kids are safe. Besides good old fashioned parenting keeps kids safe. Kudo's to Ron, this society needs to stop fetishising the veneration of children. I have to respectfully agree with Ron Paul and not with the OP



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


He's against it because it's giving the federal government another power they weren't EVER intended to have. I can assure you it's not because he hates children, protect criminals, or something like that....
edit on 11-8-2011 by infiniteobserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I don't think they run things pretty well. I think they're good at stealing money and putting it places. Least they could do is let the locals manage the programs.

This bill wants to extend federal power. That's the primary problem.

Children are not state owned.

I always loved a local graffiti on a near by highway. Gets my point across pretty well.

farm5.static.flickr.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Wow, this thread is jut like the "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin" threads, because he is for offering treatment for those with drug addiction, just as we do for alcoholics, gambling addicts, etc. instead of throwing them in jail on the tax payer dime.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join