Ron Paul and Asperger's Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

Article

We're even mentioned!

seen that.

I've actually questioned this myself but the person who wrote that article is a jerk. What's wrong with aspies and if Ron Paul is an aspie...got a problem with that?????? <--- not directed to people at wrong planet.net

Anyone else want to note observations?

1. Ron Paul is a coin collector
2. His posture and gait
3. Wrings hands
4. He's outcasted and flat out bullied by corporate big wigs and other candidates.
5. His tone of voice isn't macho but it isn't monotone so not sure about that one.
6. He's against bullying others into submission

I'm not really sure if he's an aspie though. He's definetly a different thinker and treated as such which really pisses me off to watch.

It's almost as if when I turn on the debates, I'm watching Heather all over again on America's Next Top Model.

Is this supposed to be some sort of sick joke?

Radar is a smug magazine that claims to be into the expose' - except the editors make sure to only expose people who don't share their political agenda.

The writer of that story first makes a subtle distinction between being nerdy and having AS, then seems to conflate the two.

Yeah, but he might have actually been an aspie. The general rule in society seems to be that your allowed to generalize and criticize your own group. I wouldn't be so fast to jump on him until I heard more of his views on AS....

Actually, I read back over it. The guy is an as*hole, pure and simple.

I couldn't care less if Ron Paul had AS or not. I'm not voting for someone who wants to do away with a whole revenue system that pays for my police, fire and EMT personnel, not to mention roads, etc.

I'm sure he'd have an alternate revenue plan worked out.

Your police??

The most power Ron Paul would have would be to return the troops.

He does. The 'fair tax' plan is designed to be revenue neutral - under that proposal, the calculated income for the federal government would not change.

Sorry - I meant the police, fire and EMT personnel in my hometown.
Please excuse my mistake.

The Federal Reserve does not pay for s**t, they make money off loaning 100% of our currency to us AT INTEREST. They are a privately run central bank with way too much power over our economy and our country (a huge reason we left the british empire). The money that pays for your firefighters and all that comes from tax money which comes from your paycheck which originally came from us being ripped the f$%# off.

Ron Paul is the only candidate truely suited to be president, and the only candidate that will actually make our huge, growing government smaller. He's also the only candidate that will take us a step AWAY from fascism, not toward it like the past few decades.

While I understand your point and I don't deny it, there is still a problem with Mr. Paul's plan.

You can't just shut the IRS down completely and expect the U.S. economy to sail on and/or rebound quickly.

Whether you like it or not, our capitalist, free-market laissez-faire economic system depends heavily on this kind of taxation, and even if Ron Paul may be a maverick candidate, he's STILL a REPUBLICAN.

Are we being ripped off? Most likely, yes. Yet we are being/have been taken advantage of in so many ways, in so many places, and by so many people that at this point it's hard to keep track of how much we've lost to scam artists, greedy corporations & monopolies, and so on, and so on.

We are currently in debt over our heads due to the current "War on Terror", which will reach a peak cost that no one can accurately estimate. At this point, most of the American people know that any of the natural resources we gain are coming at too high a price, and will fall into the hands of the same corporations that "rip us off" every day.

My point is that while Mr. Paul may be a candidate with unique, original ideas that set him clearly apart from the crowd, it most certainly does not qualify him to be President of the United States.

After all, how will he pay for all of the social programs that millions benefit from? (Don't give a typical welfare argument - I'm talking about disability programs that help pay for medical costs & equipment, such as wheelchairs, etc.) Social and economic programs have helped our citizens, but many have been poorly funded under our current president due to the fact that the GOP stereotypes them as "ineffective", and thinks that they are a "waste of money", adding that "people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."
Yet who the hell gave them their start? I'll bet 95% of the republicans in Congress right now didn't "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps"; they had money from their fathers and grandfathers passed down to them, and remained just as greedy as the rest of the family.

But I digress.

Also, what would he do to protect our nation from monopolistic corporations, globalization, outsourcing, and other hazards of a free market? How would we pay for all of our national services (Military, Red Cross, construction of highways, etc.)? How would we be able to fund non-profit research for cures to deadly and painful diseases?
I dig a candidate who does not instantly side with his party, but at the same time, Mr. Paul's solutions seem to create more problems than they solve in the long run.

I can understand people who don't like paying taxes, but seriously lighten the f&$k up already. Without taxes, a lot of the things we take for granted would simply vanish, leaving many who gripe about their income tax in a state of shock.

Yes, it's a flawed system. Yes, paying taxes takes away from your paycheck (until you file, and most of the time you get that money back as a refund - I do). Yes, the Federal Reserve Bank is private.

Yet cutting out the IRS completely is like amputating your leg when all you have is a shallow cut on the thigh: completely unnecessary & the wrong way to go about fixing the problem.

On the other hand, Ron Paul does handle himself cordially in debates, a nice change of pace from McCain and Guliani.

Johnny Smokesalot, you do make some valid points, however you are expecting your president to be perfect. You want your president to cover all the bases and make all-around improvements in our system. There has not been a president that has done that ever. All presidents have their upsides and downsides, you cannot expect them to be god. You must remember that presidents are, like you and I, people.

On to your points: I admit that there would probably be some economic bumpy roads after the Fed and the IRS and Income Tax are eliminated, however, as a part of Reaganomics and loose GOP economic theory, less taxes means more money in the hands of the people. It could also mean that that same money could be used on the state level to provide more tailored-for-the-people social benefits. The way our government was set up was not so we could have a Federal Socialized Healthcare system, or ban abortion on the national level, it was so states would have the right to provide socialized healthcare in their state, or ban abortion in their own state. States are much smaller areas with a comparitively less diverse population when compared to the national level, and you'd always have the option of moving out of the state you dont like into the state you do like.

Yes, Ron Paul is a republican, but to paraphrase his own words, he is running in the republican party because he feels represents what the republican party USED TO be. Republicans used to be the anti-war party, the state's power party, the party that wanted small government. Whereas the democrats were the more federalist party of the two. Nowadays, both parties are big government, federalist, warmongers. Just depends on what war you want (modern comparison GOP - Iraq, Dems - Sudan\Kosovo).,

The way we will pay for all the federal programs that are a necessity, such as education, disability, etc. Well these are the few programs that the federal government should run. So federal taxes, aside from income tax, would pay for these. How about ending this war of middle east domination. How about also reducing the pay that Congress and other federal officials get. How about the abolition of moot organizations like the Dept of Homeland Security (the gestapo imho), or the cutting of funding for the CIA so we can stop controlling less powerful countries with our statebuilding and frequent assassinations. As far as the federal goverment goes, the FBI and Federal Marshalls provide enough federal policing in the executive branch to handle all domestic threats, and the military should handle foreign threats. Trust me, when we cut down on the stupidity and beaurocracy of the Executive and Legislative brances, we will have more than enough money coming to the federal government without income tax. Let me also make the point that without the fed income tax, there would be no need for the IRS (which costs a crapton of money).

On the subject of McCain and Guiliani, 9\11, : You like fascism? You like World War 3? Elect them and watch. That's all I have to say.

First off, I never wanted a perfect president, just one that had sound economic policy and had common sense, but with these candidates, you may not even get that.

Reaganomics and what you call loose GOP economic theory have both NEVER fully worked due to the fact that they both subscribe to "trickle down" economics, i.e. the theory that money from the rich will somehow be spent and find its way to the poor, thus revitalizing the economy and reducing poverty.
Problem is, this NEVER EVER WORKS. The rich, with tax cuts and breaks, hold onto their money instead of spending it in/around places that are in need of economic investment. Having fewer taxes seems as if it would put more money in the hands of the many, but if you think about it, this is not technically true.
Most classes buy goods and services not out of impulse or want, but of need and necessity. While the rich do have needs, they tend to spend a lot more on wants than the majority of the country does, due to the fact that they can afford it.
Without taxes, this disparity would grow into a larger gap, and the rich would continue to profit off of the lower class's needs. Without other financial resources, ending taxes puts all other classes in a substantial disadvantage.

States' rights are another matter completely, one that I could write pages upon pages about, but I will skip for now.

I completely agree with your third paragraph - more than you even realize. I argued for a cut in legislator benefits to help aid child healthcare in my state when our governor decided to make deep cuts; the bill died on the house floor. Apparently, lobbying for a child's health isn't enough in this day and age.

I was being serious about McCain and Guliani; what a couple of brats. The way they handled themselves in the debates was horrid and an embarrassment to their party.

I fully agree with ending the war - I didn't want us over there in the first place. I'd rather us be in Darfur, Rwanda, and other places where mass genocide is a daily event. We would be much more effective over there, and we would have much more in the way of help.

Instead, we're too busy pursuing private oil profits.
















I gotta say, though, I'm still not voting for Ron Paul (or any other GOP candidate).
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Those services are local and state taxed. And the tolls, fines, and gasoline gets taxed to fund the roads. All the federal gov. does is intercede militarily when they shouldn't.