Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul and national/state parks

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
A thread on another forum brought this issue to light for me. I assume at least some of you don't sit on ATS all day and enjoy hiking and love nature, correct? And I also assume that some of you who love nature are Libertarian. Do you realize that if Ron Paul is elected, he would eliminate the Dept. of the Interior? This would open up all the national/state parks and geological areas to be bought up by private companies. How would you feel if you want to your favorite hiking spot one day, and saw a toll booth there? Or maybe a vending machine? Off-trail hiking permits, anyone? Or maybe they'd just mine them for whatever minerals they find there! The purpose of the government owning national/state parks is to PROTECT them. Private companies trying to make a profit off of them is only going to ruin them.

The fact is, if Ron Paul is elected, things are only going to go downhill for nature and the environment. And there's so many idiots that are going to blindly vote for him without even knowing his stance on stuff like this.




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 


please show some proof..

Many twist Ron Pauls words to suit their agenda..

Often it's a case of him wanting power taken off the Fed and given back to the states where it belongs..



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by CRDDD
 


please show some proof..

Many twist Ron Pauls words to suit their agenda..

Often it's a case of him wanting power taken off the Fed and given back to the states where it belongs..

A simple google of "ron paul department of the interior" will give you all the proof you need. Oh, and you should also read up on the general Libertarian stance on the environment.

I find it funny that as soon as someone criticizes something about glorious Ron Paul, his cronies immediately start screaming "PROOF!11"
edit on 8-11-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 


Umm no, it's actually normal for an OP to contain links backing up the claim..

I find it funny that you believe differently.


So without links your opinion is noted and minus any proof it is rejected.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Personally, i think you're right that people shouldn't mindlessly follow ANYTHING, even if it is Ron Paul. But given my own personal opinion of the human race, i know for a fact that most people WILL mindlessly follow something or another; and in this case, i'm just thankful that it isn't the worst possible option they're flocking to.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by CRDDD
 


Umm no, it's actually normal for an OP to contain links backing up the claim..

I find it funny that you believe differently.


So without links your opinion is noted and minus any proof it is rejected.

This is pretty much well known information and a simple google search provides all the info someone would need, so I saw no need to put any links. But go ahead, keep on ignoring my main points. The mere fact that you're making a big deal out of something that has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread is telling.

And you saying there is no evidence for this well known fact when there clearly is just makes you look like a (bad) troll.
edit on 9-11-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 


It is your statement of alleged fact. The onus is yours to provide a source.

However, I'll play. Alleged candy machines in Nation Parks vs. End the 20 year war & put the FRB in it's proper place . Damn tough call.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Ron Paul would allow the states to control the land that is within their borders, with their own rules, and as longfar as We the People exercise our rights to interact with our world/land/state/community, I believe most states would be very dedicated to protecting their parks.
Have some faith in people.
It helps me to have faith in people to see that you care so much about the environment that you would condemn Ron Paul for wanting to limit federal control. (Really, it does.)
But i really don't believe that 'the government says so' is the only thing from keeping Yellow Stone from becoming the next water theme park at this point.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by CRDDD
 


please show some proof..

Many twist Ron Pauls words to suit their agenda..

Often it's a case of him wanting power taken off the Fed and given back to the states where it belongs..


www.ronpaul2012.com...

I'm not an expert in arguing this position, but I'm sure someone else will come along shortly. I'm doing my own fact-check in the meantime.

I'm confident though, that much like many of his other proposed cuts, the fallout is not as bizarre as you're painting it to be, and there is likely good reason behind such a decision.

Again, I'm not an expert on this position, but I'm sure someone else will be able to elaborate further here.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog
reply to post by CRDDD
 


It is your statement of alleged fact. The onus is yours to provide a source.

However, I'll play. Alleged candy machines in Nation Parks vs. End the 20 year war & put the FRB in it's proper place . Damn tough call.

Please, stop saying stuff like "it would only be candy machines". It's obvious you're just trying to make it sound less bad and less serious than it really is. It's more than candy machines. It's the fact that our parks could be bought by a foreign country and turned into businesses trying to make a profit off of nature (or worse).

And maybe YOU are fine with a future where our beautiful national/state parks have been logged and turned into mining operations, but that doesn't mean everyone is.
edit on 9-11-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 



And the Department of Interior would be ended, which would cut annual federal spending by an additional $12 billion. None of these five departments plausibly advances a legitimate constitutional objective of the federal government.


That's all I can find..
Again it seems Ron Paul wishes to do the right thing and give the power back to the States..

Calling me a troll is a little pathetic when you make unfounded accusations and then use some lame excuse why you refuse to post proof..

I think many know who the real troll is.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eleven44
Ron Paul would allow the states to control the land that is within their borders, with their own rules, and as longfar as We the People exercise our rights to interact with our world/land/state/community, I believe most states would be very dedicated to protecting their parks.


That makes sense as to the reasoning. Cut the federal responsibility, and leave it as a state responsibility.

Of course the argument would then become 'the states wouldn't be able to take care of themselves'



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by CRDDD
 



And the Department of Interior would be ended, which would cut annual federal spending by an additional $12 billion. None of these five departments plausibly advances a legitimate constitutional objective of the federal government.


That's all I can find..
Again it seems Ron Paul wishes to do the right thing and give the power back to the States..

Calling me a troll is a little pathetic when you make unfounded accusations and then use some lame excuse why you refuse to post proof..

I think many know who the real troll is.

I repeat: a simple google search would show you all the proof you need. If he eliminated the Dept. of the Interior, this would pave the way for private companies to come in and buy up all the national/state parks.

I never called you a troll. I said your insistence that I was lying seemed trollish.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 


Youre speaking (typing) out of a lot of anger and fear at the moment.
anger at those for 'not caring.'
Fear at 'what may happen if. '
It kind of detracts from your main message: love nature.

I understand where you're coming from, which is why im trying to help you be aware. No ill intention intended.

But I really feel as though you may be misdirecting your energy and not helping your cause by approaching it the way you are.

And one question: if not Ron Paul, who would you support and why?
edit on 9-11-2011 by eleven44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by CRDDD
 


And one question: if not Ron Paul, who would you support and why?

I don't plan on voting, because I don't feel confident enough in any of the potential candidates.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 



I repeat: a simple google search would show you all the proof you need. If he eliminated the Dept. of the Interior, this would pave the way for private companies to come in and buy up all the national/state parks.


Why would it pave the way?
Personally I'd trust the States not to sell off the land before I'd trust the Feds..

But basically all you have is the fact that Ron Paul wants to close down many Fed agencies..
The rest is just assumptions and opinions of your own..



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CRDDD

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by CRDDD
 


And one question: if not Ron Paul, who would you support and why?

I don't plan on voting, because I don't feel confident enough in any of the potential candidates.


Inaction is far more dangerous than Mr. Paul.

Its that same inaction that's gonna get so many candy machines in our parks.
edit on 9-11-2011 by eleven44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD

A simple google of "ron paul department of the interior" will give you all the proof you need. Oh, and you should also read up on the general Libertarian stance on the environment.

 


Hmmm I vote Libertarian every election in every office they appear under BECAUSE of there stance on the Environment.... You must really be thinking of the Democrate/Republican two headed party


Libertarian Party 2010 Platform



2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CRDDD
 


Ron Paul has some wonderful ideas, dumping the Fed, stopping these illegal wars, etc. However many lose sight of the fact that Ron Paul IS NOT a libertarian like they think he is. He is a republican and many of his ideas are just regular republican ideas. Feed big business, abolish minimum wage for the poor and so on. Ron Paul isn't the answer but he may be the closest thing the republicans have to it.

Also Giving power to the states is part of the divide and destroy agenda of the republicans. As they get a republican governor inserted into each state. They can allow their cronies to buy the parks and take control before the next election unseats them. Look at what has been happening in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and you'll see what I am talking about. Once they sell it the next Governor's hands would be tied.

edit on Wed November 9th, 2011 by damwel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There is a ton of stuff that is the right thing to do. Cant argue that parks need protection. Thing is we cant afford to do all the "right things to do". A lot of things are going to be left undone, even more things we do here to make life more pleasant will no longer get done but some things will have to be sacrificed if we want to remain a nation. Just because we should do things does not mean we can afford to.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Xeven because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join