Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You say the protection of children should know no political boundaries so why stop at the federal level why not the global level? I hereby proclaim that we need a One World Amber Alert System. So if you do not vote for this you are voting to not protect the children from harm. Shame, shame, why would you not entrust your children to the UN? If it weren't for people like you, Calyee Anthony may still be alive and the child slave trade may end on a world level. Why then won't you support a one world amber alert system? Do you not care when children are kidnapped and put into slave trades? try and match that straw man
edit on 10-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You realize of course, that's how we've gotten to the point we are with a bloated, out of control federal government. Every single law, requirement, rule, regulation, bureau and department exists because someone was able to make the argument that it was for our own good.

For the children
For the environment
For the poor
For the sick
For education
For our safety and security

And onandonandonandon. And if you make the slightest attempt to hold the federal government to the Constitutional limits, then you are de facto against all of the above. Not because it can be done better locally or regionally, or because it's just a flat waste of time money and resources, but because you hate poor, sick orphaned children.

In the meantime, some congresscritter's brother in law owns an amber lens company and is set to pocket a few hundred mil. (Not literally, as far as I know, but there's usually some serious backscratching going on behind all this crap sold to us, or it wouldn't happen).

At least there's one crotchety old man up there who will draw a line in the sand and say "NO!" even when he gets publicly beaten up for it and in the end it hasn't made a damn bit of difference. And it hasn't because not enough people are paying attention and are quick to assume, "It's for the children" (or somesuch).


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 8/10/2011 by yeahright because: Typo



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
So Ron Paul thinks it's not the federal governments job to protect children but yet he votes for federal government funding for people to buy homes? He voted yes to add 70 million to the section 8 housing voucher program so low income people could afford houses:


Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.


www.ontheissues.org...

Perhaps there were no kickbacks for him to recieve from the little children.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Federal amber alert?
No...but some sort of system to get the word out for missing children is a good idea. As far as crime and punishment, well, unless its a federal crime, then it should be state to state. I think child molestation is a bad crime overall, but being a sex offender does not mean your a child molester...and these laws target sex offenders (and predators, but thats a different monster).

What the Fed needs to do is come up with a national threat assessment risk level that is comprehensive and logical...sorry, but someone whom flashed their boobs in public is very different than someone whom abducted a child.

I am actually not a huge ron paul fan (going against the grain on ATS), but he is right on this matter...this is a state issue and more importantly, a parents issue and the local community. Whats needed is more clarity now with the risk levels.

In saying that, I have no kids, so I personally am not bothered one way or another if my neighbor did something stupid once in these regards..if he got caught, punished and helped, then ok...but what I am actually concerned about is neighbors whom have committed repeated robberys and armed offenses..that effects me.

My extended family, none have ever had any issues with perverts (beyond the norm...my sister had a fake ID at 14 and had plenty of 20 somethings after her kinda thing)...but we have experienced many thieves and burglers throughout life...Why is it if I am curious about the -caught- pervs in my neighborhood, I can just check online, but there is no online registry for other types of felons? If this is for the safety of the community, then why is it I can't have knowledge of violent and repeat offenders on any crime above speeding tickets?

The laws are nuts...and ya, state to state issue imo



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
So Ron Paul thinks it's not the federal governments job to protect children but yet he votes for federal government funding for people to buy homes? He voted yes to add 70 million to the section 8 housing voucher program so low income people could afford houses:


Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.


www.ontheissues.org...

Perhaps there were no kickbacks for him to recieve from the little children.



You're hilarious, this guy is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by your standards. If he had voted against section 8 housing I am sure we would have seen a thread from you saying something like "Ron Paul hates poor people because he shot down section 8", or something along those lines.
edit on 8/10/2011 by SpaDe_ because: uhhh



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You think the Marines should look for your kids too? How about let's call in Scotland yard, we'd have to give them jurisdiction in the states but that's ok, anything for the kids.
While we're at it, let's use the satellites and look into people's houses and make sure they don't have your child.
Oh, I almost forgot, we can tap the lines and make sure nobody's talking about them. LETS DO THAT!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by kro32
So Ron Paul thinks it's not the federal governments job to protect children but yet he votes for federal government funding for people to buy homes? He voted yes to add 70 million to the section 8 housing voucher program so low income people could afford houses:


Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.


www.ontheissues.org...

Perhaps there were no kickbacks for him to recieve from the little children.



You're hilarious, this guy is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by your standards. If he had voted against section 8 housing I am sure we would have seen a thread from you saying something like "Ron Paul hate poor people because he shot down section 8", or something along those lines.


No had he voted against it that would have shown he is consistent instead what it shows is that his priority for children is not very high on his list.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You're wrong here, by not voting for a national amber alert system that would have been susceptible to all the political hoopla and bargaining BS that goes on in Washington, he is looking out for the best interest of the children. Children should never be put in a situation to be used as a bargaining chip, as I am sure Mr. Paul saw happening the second the national amber alert system became a reality.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I have a hard time believing that you thought he was against protecting children. If you dont like Ron Paul, fine. I won't try and change your mind. Please don't try and change mine. I know why he votes the way he does.

Next post is going to read " Ron Paul, he voted for cancer!" lol. Whatever.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Tell us how more bureaucracy will help without trampling on state and civil rights? It's clear to me that such bills use children as an excuse to destroy all rational thinking and in turn subvert the rights of us all.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You do realize you completely debunked yourself in your own OP right? In your own words you said,

To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system


So to date the program has recovered 523 children...WITHOUT being under the Federal Government umbrella. So clearly the way it is set up now is working, why change it? Have you ever heard the saying, "If it is not broke don't fix it"? Well the Amber Alert system is not broken. It is done on a State level and the States have had no issue with communications to get Amber Alerts out to other States. So why does the Federal Government need to be involved?

History has shown us, and common sense tells us that everything the Federal Government touches turns to crap. Even with the best of intentions, once the Federal Government gets involved, no matter what it is, it becomes one big bureaucracy full of hoops to jump through and red tape. If YOUR child goes missing for any reason, that LAST thing you want to deal with is red tape.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
So Ron Paul thinks it's not the federal governments job to protect children but yet he votes for federal government funding for people to buy homes? He voted yes to add 70 million to the section 8 housing voucher program so low income people could afford houses:


Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.


www.ontheissues.org...

Perhaps there were no kickbacks for him to recieve from the little children.



He voted yes on allowing an amendment to the bill. He voted NO on the bill.

clerk.house.gov...
thomas.loc.gov...:HR05576:@@@S



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I would also like to add that the man is an obstetrician that has delivered thousands of children. But I'm sure he takes care to punch each and every one.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Kro, it has become crystal-clear that you have a hard-on for Paul. Instead of focusing on the only man that states what he says, and say's what he means, spend some time on the other hundreds sitting as our Representatives who a fifth grader could easily attack, due to there sold out morals and views



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

Originally posted by yeahright
For the children
For the environment
For the poor
For the sick
For education
For our safety and security


I remember when the Department of Homeland Security went from a terrorism protection agency to pushing out into general crime...they made a case that they should be involved in some crimes against children...so expanded their role...you know..for the children (after all, who would object to that).

Well, some did at the time, the slippery slope is usually defined with words from your list, the children thing being bulletproof

Then a bit later on, they went after meth labs..because, you know, who defends meth freaks anyhow.
After that, and I watched the drones cheer this secret police growing, I stopped paying attention out of disgust. People say they are all about freedom and such, but its just bull..they just haven't heard the right codewords.

There is a reason they decided to start off the unconstitutional ripping of liberty from people through the "for the children" call...sex offenders were initially the worst of the worst...rapists, child molesters, and thats about it...then they expanded it to soo many different things and growing still. incest (consenting adults), child porn (tracy lords was 14-15 when she started porn...early tracy lords vids = cp), streaking, video voyeurism (is that a cam in the dressing room?), hentai, peeping toms, etc..
And now with this vast array of groups all under the same banner, they have successfully removed double jeopardy and are now able to eternally punish people even after they served their time for a crime...which will slip down to other crimes without a doubt.

People are screaming for totalitarianism because it may protect some part of their life...not realizing it won't protect them at all, but only allow for some seriously bad crap to come from it...its very frustrating to watch



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Do you even read the other posts or follow the links that provide the facts of the matter. If you don't then your opinion is worthless.

You have no clue what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by relpobre000
reply to post by kro32
 


I would also like to add that the man is an obstetrician that has delivered thousands of children. But I'm sure he takes care to punch each and every one.


Ron Paul delivered 4000 babies so that's a lot of babies to punch in the face. You gotta give him credit, at least he's consistent



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This is off topic "kinda" but it seems to me that the government wants to abolish each state and their governance and create a federal country run by feds....no more local police, no more local sheriffs, just the federal GESTOPO.

before you know it there wont be a congress, senate, president, just a dictator from israel


as far as the amber alert, paul is right, the states have it under control and the GUB needs to stay out of our BIDNETH



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:07 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. 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.



THIS IS NOT about "protecting the children" As Ron Paul said the STATES are handling the issue just fine and have a lot more flexability to make it work and make improvements!

You want to see how this will work after a Federal Bureaucracy get its hands on it???

All you have to do is look at the horrible mess made out of the Foot and Mouth Disease problem in the UK in 2001. A problem that has been successfully dealt with on the LOCAL level several times with a minimum of fuss and waste. This time the DIRECT cost for the government was over £2.5 billion. If you have never read the report. I really suggest you do so because it shows just how bad centralization of government can be for the people. www.warmwell.com...

If that does not convince you and you think it was a "Fluke" then all you have to do is look at how FEMA handled Katrina in New Orleans. Another example of the consequences of centralization of government.


In news coverage of this tragedy, the most significant events often were buried beneath a blanket of heart-wrenching stories.... These reports make it clear that the government did not fail to respond in a timely fashion. The problem was that it did respond - but in such a way as to actually hinder rescue operations. There were too many instances for this to be merely a mistake or a bureaucratic snafu....

(If the original sources are no longer active, click on (Cached).
[A long list of articles followed]

So what is going on here? Were agents of the federal government trying to kill American citizens? Were they trying to obtain the maximum death toll and the highest level of human suffering? It would seem that way at first, but I would like to suggest that this incredible behavior stems from something else - something equally unsettling.

The only legitimate function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens.

In New Orleans, however, it was clear that the primary job of the military, FEMA, and Homeland Security was, not to protect citizens, but to protect the government and keep it functioning....

It was clear from the start that the goal of FEMA and Homeland Security was, not to resue people, but to control them.

...The reason they failed to carry out an effective rescue operation is that this was not their primary mission, and the reason they blocked others from doing so is that any operations not controlled by the central authority are contrary to their directives. Their objective was to bring the entire area under the control of the federal government - and this they succeeded in doing very well.... SOURCE





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join