It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Hopechest
Here is an example.
Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert Bill because he believed it was not the Federal Governments responsibility to do so.
It did not matter that States were not doing this themselves, the only thing that mattered was Pauls principles.
That one bill has been responsible for saving the lives of over 500 innocent children who otherwise would have been dead.
Paul was willing to sacrifice the lives of these children in order to stand on a principle that at best falls into a grey area. Now do you think he would have an issue letting unemployment skyrocket or the economy collapse in order to stand for another of his principles?
Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?
It's not the Presidents job to pass a budget that job belongs to congress. And the last budget the senate approved was in 09.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I've gotta agree with Hopechest, at least to an extent. Paul would have been the most ineffective President ever. Before someone like Ron Paul can ever be President we would first need to get like minded people in other governmental positions. Not just in Congress but in state and local positions as well. So instead of complaining how there's no longer any hope you should get out there and get involved in the system. Ron Paul wasn't going to change things single handily so I fail to see why so many members on this site seemingly put all their eggs in his basket.