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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
Kro,

You got your ass handed to you on the first page ... give up you lose!

EPIC FAIL

edit on 10-8-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


Most of the people in this thread doing this so called "ass handing" think the Amber Alert system is just great and that this is a current vote. It is a lot funnier to watch people say they are with Ron Paul on this vote because the AA system is great the way it is without realizing the vote was 8 years ago and what they like is what he voted against.




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

This law has not brought down the government or taken away any of your rights but their are parents who can put their children to bed at night instead of visiting them at the graveyard because of this.


What an empty comment. I think describing you as delusional would be giving you too much credit.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


I've been watching this same thing with amusement. I probably should have put the link that this was already federal law in the OP but I didn't think it was necessary. I will remember that in the future.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You all are missing the point. The law is successful now because it IS national law. The federal goverment made this National in 2003 and it has by all accounts been extremely successful. Had Ron Paul had his way there would not have been nearly the amount of children saved.

www.eviewsinc.com...

The bottom line is that Ron Paul voted NO on this without a better system in place or offering one of his own. This law has not brought down the government or taken away any of your rights but their are parents who can put their children to bed at night instead of visiting them at the graveyard because of this.


Just think how much more successful it would've been had it not been put under Federal jurisdiction. I wonder how many kids have died, been raped, or are just missing because the Federal government couldn't keep their filthy hands out of the cookie jar.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Je3Re3My

This law has not brought down the government or taken away any of your rights but their are parents who can put their children to bed at night instead of visiting them at the graveyard because of this.


What an empty comment. I think describing you as delusional would be giving you too much credit.


Please enumerate the rights that the AMBER Alert system has violated of yours.
This is really all I am asking for.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Nope! Don't change a thing. This thread has just been a wonderful way to expose those with an eagerness to jump on a political bandwagon without ever looking at the reality of the situation. There are usually a lot more people that actually read the whole OP but for those that did not take the time and just jumped in with their "I am totally with Paul on this, the AMBER Alert is great the way it is now!" it has been highly enlightening to me at least.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Just think how much more successful it would've been had it not been put under Federal jurisdiction.


Don't keep us in suspense. How much more successful would it have been?


I wonder how many kids have died, been raped, or are just missing because the Federal government couldn't keep their filthy hands out of the cookie jar.

/TOA


Gosh, now I wonder too. Have any kind of numbers?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohioriver
reply to post by kro32
 


Paul is right.Those words should bring terror to all parents

"I am from the government and I am here to help"


I'm from Enron and I'm here to help.
I'm from Goldman Sachs and I'm here to help.
I'm from Monsanto and I'm here to help.
I'm from Dow Chemical and I'm here to help.
I'm from Blackwater and I'm here to help.

Call me crazy, I think I'll take my chances with the government.

Sex tourism is already a crime. Granted, it is odd that a crime committed in another country is punished in the US. I can tolerate this questionably unconstitutional law for child abuse, but I wouldn't want to see somebody getting busted in the US for smoking a joint in Amsterdam. Getting busted for drawing dirty pictures? Forget it. You just hold you nose and accept that nonsense as free speech. Picket the publishing company, i.e. find some civil way to stop that crap other than a law.

Nationwide Amber Alerts are probably a good idea. Children are abducted across state lines all the time.

In general, Ron Paul is nuts. Often his foreign policy is OK, but I wouldn't want him setting domestic policy. I'm glad he is retiring. Now if we can get rid of his psychotic son. Rand doesn't play with a full deck.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Je3Re3My

This law has not brought down the government or taken away any of your rights but their are parents who can put their children to bed at night instead of visiting them at the graveyard because of this.


What an empty comment. I think describing you as delusional would be giving you too much credit.


Please enumerate the rights that the AMBER Alert system has violated of yours.
This is really all I am asking for.


their are parents who can put their children to bed at night instead of visiting them at the graveyard because of this.

I was replying to this, granted I should of narrowed down the quote.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Ok so he votes No because he believes it could be more effective on a state level rather than a federal. You really think he doesn't want to protect children?

Bush and Obama have killed and injured more children than we can count continuing this fake war. (Well basically following orders from the Banks and MIC)

Your comment of "Ron Paul for President...yeah ok " just oozes of blind hate and ignorance.

Perhaps your next topic should be something more your speed such as discussing the latest Transformers flick.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I had this big letter typed out and it didnt say what i really wanted to say. I will just say it plainly here and it it gets removed because its offensive then we live in a society that cannot take a truth for what its worth.
If the missing child finding program goes federal, Then it will eventually start kidnapping children itself. It will be headed up by convicted pedophiles getting huge salary's. It will become a puss filled blister sucking off society much like the CPS and CIA. even INTERPOL and the United Nations whom we trust and expect honor from are consistantly getting caught running sex slavery trafficking all over the place.
Either the OP is totally clueless or he is being payed to badmouth ron paul.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:42 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.


Bad things happen. I don't want the government involved if I can avoid it. I certainly don't want them to do anything beyond the constitutional scope of their duties on my account. When you sacrifice freedom for safety you end up with neither.

We could easily propose a law that we are all required to give our DNA to a database and that all cars must be equipped with special DNA sensors--that way, if a child is abducted, we can find what car they are in and stop it with some government controlled emergency brake system. We can also equip all the cars and houses with cameras and face recognition technology (which is linked to a database as well) so we can watch the kidnapper until help arrives!!! Why don't we also equip all cars with government controlled seat belt mechanisms that can serve as restraints, so the kidnappers can't flee the vehicle? Maybe we can put a cyanide chip in everyone's arm. That way we can protect the children by activating the kidnapper's chip, after we lock him in the car which we've stopped because the special DNA sensors found your child in his car from the DNA database that tracks us all...

Why not? Wouldn't you want to use ALL the possible resources to find your child???

Or how about this... we can pass a law that all children must be handcuffed to their parents until they are 18 years old or, at the very least, tracked by implantable GPS enabled RFID chips...



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

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.
If I'm reading this correctly it would make a lot of questionable "illustrations" illegal. An illustration may even be a simple drawing. And I can also understand why if I person travels to a foreign country they should have to obey by that countries laws, it is quite an overstepping to dictate what a person can and cannot do whilst they are in another country if they are obeying the laws of that country. I can easily see why he voted no on this. It seems like nothing but a bunch of sneaky and underhanded tactics to catch sex offenders by twisting the boundaries of law and rationality. Drawings are not people and an adult in one country can be considered a child in the next.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:48 AM
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)


as a non- parent i agree.

then again, i also think that 99% of people should not have kids because they are children themselves.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


If I am a parent the only one who should take care of my kids is me. I would be a bad parent if I let others take care of my kid. Why? do you really have to ask? Look at what the federal government is doing.

now that would be equivalent to handing your child to a pedophile and hope the pedophile keeps your child safe.

Im sorry but I am with ron paul on this one. It is a parents Job to take care of their kids, not the governments.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

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


What are you averaging a week for Ron Paul hit pieces? One a day? Where's the bill to protect the children from the predators roaming the streets in clown suits with badges? Really, These are the only kind of topics I expect you to post. Its clear that you as one of the clowns with a badge want more power to just walk into peoples lives and destroy their families.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


It's a fact in Australia that kids in Federal care are more likely to be abused than kids living at home..

Go our Government..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Similar to what alot of people have said, I could go on for days on how Ron made complete sense when he said that Amber alerts work fine right now and that it would actually hurt the Amber alert system to make it federal.

Kro, you have a habit of making a little bit of sense in one thread, then not making any in another.

Just going to leave off with this. Since this IS a conspiracy site, I am sure a good amount of people are privy to how badly the government handles children already and that there is a strong current belief that some kids get "lost" in the system once they get in the governments hands. Some kids end up in places worse than a random lone predator's basement. If the Fed Govt gets ahold of the Amber alert system, the same thing could happen to some kids they find, but don't report.

Hate to say it, but Just sayin.... :
edit on 11-8-2011 by Lynexon because: grammar



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 




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.


This is what worries me. Now they can arrest you for things you do other places -- agreed illicit sexual conduct with a minor I think they should arrest you for everywhere -- however I'm against setting a precedent that they can arrest you for things done in other places. Also increasing the wiretap and electronic surveillance even MORE. I'm sorry but I don't put it past the FBI to use wiretapping saying it had to do with child pornography when really they just wanted to spy...

Not only that but as everyone else has said... Rom Paul wants smaller government (and some other things which I support less than small government).
edit on 11-8-2011 by badcon because: oops misspelling!



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
kro32 hates white people

If you look at kro32's post history, you will see that he makes many threads and posts against Ron Paul. Therefore, I have concluded, by his own actions, that kro32 hates white people.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join