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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The Amber Alert works BECAUSE it is local, the local authorities can address the issue and issue an alert much faster than a federal department that would have to call Washington to have it approved before it does anything.

From what i have seen in the DFW area in most cases after an Amber Alert is issued to the television stations the children are found within hours whereas a federal department would still be waiting on a decision from Washington on whether to issue the alert or not.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" and in this case it ain't broke and getting the federal government involved will not make it any better of a system.

"If it's being done right, it's probably NOT being done by the federal government"

This commercial was brought to you by the United States Government, the same government that brought you: Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq the sequel, Afghanistan and now featuring Libya




posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalWabbit
 


You do realize that this became a federal law in 2003 when Congress passed it, minus Ron Paul, and Bush signed it into law don't you. Seems that federal control has had no negative effects on it.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I'm amused that his reason is because he doesn't like the idea of federal dollars being spent to coordinate efforts to help actual children.. .and not because the proposal would criminalize anyone who were to draw a stick figure with a penis and a speech bubble saying "I am five years old."



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by CynicalWabbit
 


You do realize that this became a federal law in 2003 when Congress passed it, minus Ron Paul, and Bush signed it into law don't you. Seems that federal control has had no negative effects on it.


Except the feds don't control it the states administer it as has already been said several times.... Sigh!
edit on 11-8-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I read through most of the other pages and did not see any mention of the other provisions in this bill, which in and of themselves would make this bill unconstitutional. The one that stuck out the most to me was that it would be a crime to possess a visual illustration (not a photograph) of a child that was deemed to be obscene or pornographic.

Specifically,
"(4) producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that, under specified circumstances, depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and that is obscene;"

So now just drawing a picture of what appears to be (because they aren't actually real) children in sexually explicit circumstances is illegal? Wouldn't this include all of the hentai and manga type comics? While I am not personally a fan of these comics I would never say that their authors should be arrested for making them. I used to have cartoons of Bart and Lisa Simpson engaged in sexually explicit behavior, and while it may have been distasteful, I certainly never would have considered it to be child porn.

My point is, the Amber Alert issue is but one small part of the bill, and while I don\'t think the Feds had any need to involve themselves in it, I think that it was mostly used as a emotional hot button for people so that they could expand their control over other areas unhampered. Ron Paul is no idiot and he is one of the few people in Washington who actually reads the bills he votes on. If more people would pay attention to what he says and take him more seriously, we'd be a lot better off in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
OP, what don't you understand about Ron Paul's stated reasons for opposing the bill? He said very clearly, "one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program." Do you have a problem understanding that centralized control of every facet of American society is a bad idea? The moment the feds gain control of something, efficiency, effectiveness, and worst of all, accountability, are all flushed down the toilet.
edit on 8/11/2011 by dubiousone because: spelling



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:11 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.


The way an Ameber Alert works in my state it is immediately broadcast to every police department with in 100 miles. If it has been more than an hour it goes state wide. It is also broadcast on digital road signs across the state. Many talk radio stations will mention it on the hour or half hour. Plus, the tv stations run it on their news.

Our system has been very effective. We do not need the federal government to come in and run it. Believe it or not people outside of Washington usually know what works better for their city, county, or state.

A lot of these things like increasing the government's ability to wire tap and criminalizing behavior in another country is really more of the totalitarian big brother we don't need.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Not my place to speak but it is sad that I as a South African understand what Ron Paul is saying, and an American citizen whom doesn't.

Ron Paul is the only true hope for the U.S. Imo, If he should become president, he would be the best one you had in the last 5 decades. America needs this man, and if it goes well in the U.S, many countries in the world will be better off.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
OP, what don't you understand about Ron Paul's stated reasons for opposing the bill? He said very clearly, "one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program." Do you have a problem understanding that centralized control of every facet of American society is a bad idea? The moment the feds gain control of something, efficiency, effectiveness, and worst of all, accountability, are all flushed down the toilet.
edit on 8/11/2011 by dubiousone because: spelling


Thats the thing, the feds do have control of it now..

They have since 2003... This is 8 freaking years old..



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Parents should need to take of their own kids just like the Federal government tried to do something about the video games. Too much power of the government expanded.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

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.


If you pay attention he voted to take money away from a program that had been inefficiently using it's funds and transferred it to a system that couldn't help the familys in need. It sounds like he was voting for more efficient government. That is consistent.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Didn't you read the second paragraph that you posted? He didn't say get rid of it, he said the federal government doesn't need to take it over and make it a one-size fits all. I completely agree. I'm still voting for him, who do you back? I'm sure she/he can have their words twisted around too. Good try



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sbc650mike
 


Paul was actually doing the twisting as it wasn't a takeover of the system as he claims. At the time there were only 26 States who had the Amber Alert System and this legislation put in a coordinator in the Department of Justice to help other States set up the system as well as providing funds to the states to purchase equiptment to broadcast the alerts.


In October 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children launched a campaign to have AMBER Alert systems established nationwide. In February 2002, the Federal Communications Commission officially endorsed the system. In 2002, several children were abducted in cases that drew national attention. One such case, the kidnapping and murder of Samantha Runnion, prompted California to establish an AMBER Alert system on July 24, 2002.[9] According to Senator Dianne Feinstein, in its first month California issued 13 AMBER alerts; 12 of the children were recovered safely and the remaining alert was found to be a misunderstanding.[15]



By September 2002, 26 states had established AMBER Alert systems that covered all or parts of the state. A bipartisan group of over 20 US Senators, led by Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein, proposed legislation to name an AMBER Alert coordinator in the U.S. Justice Department who could help coordinate state efforts. The bill also provided $25 million in federal matching grants for states to establish AMBER Alert programs and necessary equipment purchases, such as electronic highway signs. A similar bill was sponsored in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jennifer Dunn and Martin Frost.[15] The bill passed the Senate unanimously within a week of its proposal.[10] At an October 2002 conference on missing, exploited, and runaway children, President George W. Bush announced improvements to the AMBER Alert system, including the development of a national standard for issuing AMBER Alerts.[16] A similar bill passed the House several weeks later on a 390–24 vote.[17] A related bill finally became law in April 2003.[18]


None of Ron Paul's fears have come to pass with the passage of this bill.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
OP, what don't you understand about Ron Paul's stated reasons for opposing the bill? He said very clearly, "one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program." Do you have a problem understanding that centralized control of every facet of American society is a bad idea? The moment the feds gain control of something, efficiency, effectiveness, and worst of all, accountability, are all flushed down the toilet.
edit on 8/11/2011 by dubiousone because: spelling


Is it less effective now than it was a decade ago or more?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


TS, In the text you quoted Ron P explains in clear terms why he does not support the bill.




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.


Read it carefully. He is in full support of the Amber program. His reasons for voting against are that one it's 'unconstitutional' and two that the Amber program will lose its effectiveness and qualities once turned into a federal program.

TS, you are under the opposite impression. You think that making it a federal program will increase it's effectiveness.

You and mr.Paul have different opinions, that's all. Yet to state that he doesn't care about missing children is plain wrong.

Perhaps it would have been more effective to discuss the reasons why you disagree with mr.Paul's idea's on this issue.

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



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Ok I hear what you're saying, but if it already passed then why is it being voted on again? To add to it? I wonder if the 26 states who already had their systems set up, got 25 Million re-imbursed. Most of the time the Amber Alert signs on the freeway tell me how long it will take me to get to the airport or nearby town, or to click it or ticket. Maybe the signs could be used to report other crimes like rapes, shootings etc . Go Ron Paul



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
Read it carefully. He is in full support of the Amber program. His reasons for voting against are that one it's 'unconstitutional' and two that the Amber program will lose its effectiveness and qualities once turned into a federal program.



He supports it even though he believes it is unconstitutional?
Can you explain that to me? Either he supports it or he does not. Either it is unconstitutional or not. Why would Ron Paul support something he refuses to vote for because it is unconstitutional? That is a very confusing dichotomy.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
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.


So the only kids that are kidnapped are those that come from bad parents?
Can I watch you explain that to the Smart family?

All this "I am the only one that needs to take care of my kids" would fly right out the window the moment your child went missing. Would you really like it if when you called the cops or asked friends and neighbors for help they replied that the only one that should take care of your child is you?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by dadgad
Read it carefully. He is in full support of the Amber program. His reasons for voting against are that one it's 'unconstitutional' and two that the Amber program will lose its effectiveness and qualities once turned into a federal program.



He supports it even though he believes it is unconstitutional?
Can you explain that to me? Either he supports it or he does not. Either it is unconstitutional or not. Why would Ron Paul support something he refuses to vote for because it is unconstitutional? That is a very confusing dichotomy.


Well apparently programs can exist without being 'federal'. He is saying that the Amber program has been very effective the way it is and according to him to make it 'federal' will diminish the effectiveness the program has been showing.

I guess American politics is somewhat complicated. Just correct me when I'm wrong.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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..


That is just fantastic.
Thanks for sharing.
It's a fact that my driveway fills up with worms when it rains.

What you posted has nothing to do with this topic or anything I have posted in this or any other thread on ATS but thanks a ton.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join