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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You sound like someone who works for the mainstream media, sensationalizing Ron Paul's votes and playing on pathetic emotionalism in a failed attempt at discrediting him. Voting no against big government = hating children. Wow. Are you honestly trying to tell me that we need yet another federal bureaucracy involved in an issue states handle quite well? Tell me, have you looked into a job at Fox News lately? I'm sure they could use someone like you.




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 
Kro's got a valid point on this one if he can show that this federal legislation has benefitted the AMBER Alert system and not caused any more-harmful unintended consequences.

He is free to share his thoughts in this forum as well, even though I tend to disagree with him. This isn't anything I've ever looked too deeply in to, though, so I'm hoping he can provide something to show that HR 1104 did more good than harm, like most other things FedGov likes to stick its fingers into.

We should be arguing this based on net outcomes, in addition to possible constitutional authorities - or lack thereof - for it.
edit on 8/10/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 
That depends, like with anything else, and as a good chunk of the populace is ignorant on certain things (not stupid, just ignorant), there's already more than enough ammo if they want to start taking things out of context without looking into them.

On this one specifically though, it depends on if this legislation has actually helped or if has been more of a stumbling block or caused other serious issues.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


What RP was trying to convey was that by making it a FED program, it would be subject to FED regulations and a cookie cutter one size fits all solution for the entire nation. I am all for Amber alerts and yes it should get federal funding. I believe that each states national gaurd should immobilize when children turn up missing and set checkpoints and perform mandatory searches for every vehicle without the need of warrants. It could be that need for a warrant that would cost those children their lives.

Most children will stay quiet if a sex offender that kidnapped them threatens that he/she will kill them if they make a sound, even if theres a cop right there within arms reach that could save them, in fear for their lives they wont make a sound. It needs to be when an amber alert is initated these checkpoints are set up and regardless of who you are your vehicle gets searched. It may be a violation of rights but no law abiding citizen would ever say no if it was to save the life of a kidnapped child from a sex offender, i know i wouldnt.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:02 PM
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)


A pedophile grabs your kid while they are walking away from school. Who do you look to protect your child now? Parents cannot watch their children 24/7 and as a parent you should know that.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
While I'm not opposed to states running such a response system, in some cases there should be a national network, not necessarily ran by the federal government. I'm not certain if this is the case or not with the amber alert system, but IMO, it should be interstate accessible, and quick.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I think you are wrong and he is right. Obviously what he was saying was that the program would be less effective if it were controlled by the Federal government, and I agree with him. The people in the trenches should be the ones making the decisions, not those sitting behind their desks in Washington. Geez, sensationalize much?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

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




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.


No, to date, there have been 523 children saved using the system Ron's trying to maintain.

They might very well been dead if it'd be up to the feds in the first place.

I'm not one to blindly side with anyone, even Ron Paul. But, like many times, I can easily see his logic here. These kinds of local programs are better left operated by the people in the area.

One advantage to a federal system though would be that it'd be easier to track kidnapped children trafficked into other states.

Best solution would be mix it between federal and state. Most control belongs to the state and locals, but the Feds can organize it enough that the groups can be efficient working with each other.

~
Hell, we don't even need Federal funding for this. Instead of charging everyone in the country equally(basically what federal funding means), if these stayed at a local level, the local people could pay out of their taxes. Instead of the inevitable over/under funding of areas the feds would do, local governments could pull out and exact appropriate amount of of their funds.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

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.

Your ignorance does not deserve words, a facepalm is all that's necessary to describe the level of speechlessness that your line of thinking evokes in people.

First of all, what is that title all about? "Voted to not protect children from harm", where did he vote to eliminate ambulance/hospital services for children? Can you point out the bill that he voted on that requires law enforcement officers to ignore calls that relate to children? Because all I see is him voting against the federal government gaining more power.

He didn't vote to not protect children, he voted to keep the current system of locating kidnapped children in the hands of the local authorities rather than a government agency.

"they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul"
If it had been up to Ron Paul, the amber alert system would not be operated by the federal government just like how it was when those 523 children were recovered. So in reality they would all be alive if it were up to Ron Paul because the system used to find those kids is the system that he voted to keep.

Thread fail



Ron Paul for President...yeah ok
Yeah, you know that document in your avatar? Ron Pauls strongest campaign point is that he will protect and defend the Constitution. So......yeaaaaah.
edit on 10-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
First of all, what is that title all about? "Voted to not protect children from harm", where did he vote to eliminate ambulance/hospital services for children? Can you point out the bill that he voted on that requires law enforcement officers to ignore calls that relate to children? Because all I see is him voting against the federal government gaining more power.


The title does not say ALL HARM.
Anyway. What power? How can this power be abused?

This thread is a joke right? People really worry what might happen if the federal government can issue Amber alerts? Well, they can. We failed to devolve into chaos over it. So what is it you were afraid of?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




Anyway. What power? How can this power be abused?

It also would enlarge law enforcement’s [color=limegreen]wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.
The Patriot Act brought too much surveillance on Americans, we don't need even more. "Investigations of child pornography", one way I can think of this being abused is since child pornography is viewed on the internet, basically any person using the internet can be spied on and justified as a part of a child pornography investigation.


So what is it you were afraid of?
The government controlling every aspect of our lives.


edit on 10-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts.


What the hell is a National coordinator? Sure, let the Feds nationalize Amber Alert. They already do an outstanding job with FEMA.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
This thread is a joke right? People really worry what might happen if the federal government can issue Amber alerts? Well, they can. We failed to devolve into chaos over it. So what is it you were afraid of?


"Cookie Cutter" methods, as others have put it. The Federal Government isn't capable of specializing everything to local needs. Also, funding is more easily assigned and managed when it's coming from the locals taxes instead of everyone in every local district funding every other districts too.

Basically, this isn't any conspiracy about the Feds misusing the Amber alert privilege. It's that Ron Paul thought it'd be more efficient to keep it a local job than a Federal one. And the OP misinterpreted and portrayed that as him voting against protecting children.

Ron voted, not against protecting children, but for what he thought was the best way to protect them.

No joke in this thread, just a controversial bill and a few misrepresentations of things.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The Patriot Act brought too much surveillance on Americans, we don't need even more.

The Patriot Act came after the Amber Alert.

"Investigations of child pornography", one way I can think of this being abused is since child pornography is viewed on the internet, basically any person using the internet can be spied on and justified as a part of a child pornography investigation.


Before the Amber Alert and without the Amber Alert, they could not spy on your internet usage? Wonder how they caught all those child porn dealers in the 90s then?



So what is it you were afraid of?
The government controlling every aspect of our lives.


edit on 10-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


I am still unclear what control you feel this gave them.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeTan
reply to post by kro32
 




Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts.


What the hell is a National coordinator? Sure, let the Feds nationalize Amber Alert. They already do an outstanding job with FEMA.




How do you feel the Amber Alert is doing now?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
To the original post headline. He opposed this because it gives more power to the federal government on what your rights as a parent are. Has anyone else noticed the prison populations increasing with government authority? Prisons are owned and run by corporations.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I feel they are doing their job as intended. I feel if they are to grow, they will grow on their own.
Point is, when the feds get involved, more freedom and privacy is stripped.


Also this...




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


Okay, so if I'm reading this right, this bill makes Amber Alert have the power to give maximum sentence to guilty criminals?

Two other things I want to point out, the bold text.. No, I do not condone any kind of child pornography or child abuse, I want to make that crystal clear.
I still don't get how making it a fed program can help it at all. Sex offenders, child porn, why should it fall under amber alert?
Amber Alert was found to do one thing, locate missing children and find them, not be judge and juror.
On another note, how would they even control people who travel to other countries to do their sick business? Psych screening at airports? They want to finally make child sex in foreign countries a crime? They should start with our politicians.

WIRE TAP AND ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ABILITIES in investigations of child pornography. It should scream something to you. It does to me.
This is more wool over your eyes as you trade your freedoms for safety that should not come with such a price.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 

Yes it is, but it is not organized on a federal level, it is state by state. It would be a mistake to bring it more into a federal level as it would cause more problems and harm than good. The federal government tends to play by one set of rules and the states by another. In this case leave it at the state level.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I don't see anything wrong with his view. He agrees that the Amber Alert works, but it's more effectively done at the state level. This is the same reasoning that the federal government should abolish the department of education and allow states and local municipalities control education funding.

This is like having a CEO of a company making production changes when the workers on the floor know more about what will work and what won't. It's like managing a facility when you're isolated from the main problem.

I think your headline on this thread is trying to misrepresent Ron Paul's actual reason from keeping the Amber Alert system out of the hands of the federal government.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



The Patriot Act came after the Amber Alert.
So I'm assuming this bill passed then, giving the federal government a level of control in the Amber Alert system?


Before the Amber Alert and without the Amber Alert, they could not spy on your internet usage? Wonder how they caught all those child porn dealers in the 90s then?
Right, but the key word here is "enlarges" surveillance/wiretaps. It gives them a little bit more power.


I am still unclear what control you feel this gave them.
My bad, I should have explained. I mean I don't want the federal government slowly taking control of everything, whether that is Amber Alerts, supplying the food/water, monitoring internet usage, tracking people in vehicles, and so on.

I could just be paranoid, but I don't like the idea of the federal government being in control of too many things.
edit on 10-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join