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.

 

Is Ron Paul supporting individual freedoms, or freedom of State Government for unlimited rule?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

This one issue alone is enough for me to not support Ron Paul...and yet there are so many more issues just like this one where his extremism forces him into illogical positions.


That one issue alone, huh? So that issue trumps his willingness, and as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces absolute authority, to end the murders of the citizens of sovereign nations? Interesting priorities you have there.

And that goes for any of you other Progressives. Shouldn't you be out with placards marching in little circles protesting our wars like you were doing when Bush was in office? You seem to have been replaced with complacency.

/TOA




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional.


Anyone who thinks "white only" clubs can happen without riots and constantly being targeted by criminals and thugs is delusional. The "black only" or "Hispanic only" clubs, however, would not receive any backlash at all.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Ron Paul has those racist Newsletters in his past.

There are photos of him with top leaders of White Supremicists.

He has taken campaign donations from white supremicist groups and refused to give it back when confronted by it.
Oh look there he is with one of them White Supremacy donors

Ron Paul does a mean Masonic Handshake, don't believe me watch this,

RP's A Masonic handshaker

Put it all together and you got an elitist who pals around with well, the kind of guys who would love the States to have all the power so they could turn a State into pre-1960 Americana. Back of the bus, we don't serve your kind here is A-OK with good ole boy Ron Paul as long as the State wants it that way after he gives them the power.


Ron Paul is not a Mason. Too bad, I wish he were, but the fact is, he is not.

Your Avatar is nice though, I kind of like it. The Rebel Flag is very common down here in the South, and it is even worn by black folks! I have a good friend that used to tour with T. Pain, and he wore the Civil War hat like your Avvy, and he wore a Rebel Flag leather vest, and he was a guitar playing hype man at the concerts.

And yes, I believe most of the country would like to see the US return to pre-1960 values and work ethic and patriotism and economy.

Your post is mostly right on point, and none of it means anything racist. We can have all of those things, and still not have racism. In fact, CBS News says Whites are at a tipping point, and are now a becoming a minority.

I like posts and avatars like yours. They are fairly accurate, and your ridiculous spin is readily apparent and easy to ignore, so you have done more good than harm.

edit on 26-8-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jugtalicus
The only governing body needed is one that HONESTLY upholds The Constitution. Think about this realistically for a second. Assuming the governing body is honest and not crooked as they are now...and then some...why in thier right minds would they allow segregation to happen, for example. OBVIOUSLY human rights need to be protected so ofcourse there would be measures in place to handle extremes such as that.


But the Constitution didn't protect people from slavery in the past, nor did it afford voting rights to certain unenfranchised demographic groups. The Supreme Court has historically upheld slavery solely because of their interpretation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is very vague, and there is plenty of opportunity to enact draconian, discriminatory and absurd legislation because of what isn't explicitly included in it.

How would a governing body stop segregation from happening if the states can decide on that for themselves ?

The reality is that human beings, by nature, are prejudiced and discriminatory, so societies will always evolve to have some class of people who are considered at the bottom of the chain, and who will be exploited and abused.

Centralised legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act, is necessarily, because people generally will not act equally towards their fellow man unless they are forced to by law.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Localized mob rule? Really? Compared to Federal mob rule? We're not talking about po-dunk towns making their own laws. We're talking about State Governments, that make a lot of their own laws already, and have budgets & millions of government employees...Your portrayal of overall-wearing, straw hat & pitchfork mobs overrunning "civilized society" with bigotry is laughable.


From what I can gather, the US has large regional variations in its social, racial, political and religious make up. Much more power to state governments would see the negative side to these variations flourish, and the consequent legislation - or lack of it - would most likely see American society, as a whole, go backwards.

The Federal government is accountable, it's only the inaction and inertia of the people which means that the politicians can get away with abusing their power.


Originally posted by jessejamesxx
Each individual person in the state they live in, would have more sway & say over the laws & conditions they lived under. Your vote would count, and it might feel like democracy again.

Federal government couldn't swoop in and kill legislation that was unanimously voted on at the state level. (Texas against TSA groping, Decriminalization of marijuana, industrialization of marijuana)


Then I would say the best solution would be to limit the Federal government's jurisdiction on certain issues which could be decided at the state level ( such as the examples you cite ), but to allow the Federal government to have the power to limit and overrule the states' implementation of legislation which could violate nationally important concepts, such as Civil Rights.

People tend to go from one extreme to the other, and while it seems obvious that the Federal government has too much authority over issues which could be decided at state level, Dr. Paul's alternative goes too far the other extreme.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Then I would say the best solution would be to limit the Federal government's jurisdiction on certain issues which could be decided at the state level ( such as the examples you cite ), but to allow the Federal government to have the power to limit and overrule the states' implementation of legislation which could violate nationally important concepts, such as Civil Rights.

People tend to go from one extreme to the other, and while it seems obvious that the Federal government has too much authority over issues which could be decided at state level, Dr. Paul's alternative goes too far the other extreme.



I can agree with most of that, for the most part. BUT, any other candidate isn't going to be doing any of that, and just because Ron is for state sovereignty, doesn't mean he'll be able to do anything about it. He has a lot of people to answer to (reps and dems, who are both ideologically not on board) and pretty much nothing would be done about some of his so-called more 'extreme' ideas. In the end, you'd probably end up somewhere in the middle, like limiting fed govs power & jurisdiction on main issues.
edit on 26-8-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join