How can someone with Aspergers be left-wing?

Post Reply New Topic

The word apolitical cannot contain my views my apologies, there is not yet a word for my views, I used apolitical out of common vocabulary you would understand. And yes conservatives more often then not are incredibly stupid because they are incapable of understanding flaws of complex systems i.e. the monetary system for instance, as well as understanding how institutions using the market mechanism transform the markets they exist in into something that is no longer a market.

As I said before you are unaware of how flawed your mind and body are, there is a biological and cultural basis for your political orientation, not a rational one. Since there are many ways to configure a society which is obvious with a little bit of historical knowledge of other societies then the USA, Europe, etc.

So everyone that disagrees with you is inferior? I got news for you, if you want to know who has issues, look in the mirror.

People can be on the opposite sides of issues and not be evil or stupid. You immediately jump right into the thread and calling people evil or stupid, then you are shocked when someone like me gets angry.

You want to know why the Democrats got their heads handed to them in this last election, is because they attacked people calling them racist bigots, because they happened to disagree with the direction the Dems were taking this country. Which quite frankly is what you just did.

Also just because this is the internet doesn't mean you should try to hurt others, remember every member of this board is a person not a machine.

If you want to behave like a bully go right ahead, just don't expect me to stand by and let you bully myself or others. Quite frankly, if you went after Master_Pedant like that I would jump to his defense despite us being on the other side of the political spectrum. Yeah we pick at each other, probably annoy each other but at the end of the day he is still a human being that has feelings.

Inuyasha: turn-about is fair play. Neither the Cato institute nor Faux news are acceptable resources. The 'Examiner' article was headed by an unflattering photo of Nancy Pelosi with the caption, "you lie."

They are certainly more credible than everyone else out there at the moment. They are especially credible in this instance because if you do your own checking into the numbers you'll come up with the same answer.

Furthermore, if Obamacare was really what Dems claimed it would be, Republicans wouldn't have had the field day they had tieing it around Democrats necks during the election.

It wasn't a messaging problem, it was a policy problem.

^when polled about whether or not they liked the items that are actually in the Obama plan (allowing kids to stay on their parent's insurance programs; stopping 'pre-existing condition' denials; etc), the vast majority of voters like what is in the bill. When polled about what Faux news says is in the bill ('death panels') but actually is not, voters dislike the bill.

what a surprise.

I'm saying inuyasha that truth and politics are two different things, and that people see what they want to see - i.e. the truth is HARD and takes YEARS to disentangle. I read countless neurological journals, political journals, sociological journals, etc, constantly.

I'm trying to tell you, you haven't put enough time or effort into your views, when seeking truth you have to constantly challenge your views, you have to go to places you don't normally go, and you have to have the ability to weed out those with genuine arguments and those who have already _pre decided_ their position, i.e. those who view the world and feel a certain way and then find arguments to rationalize those feelings.

There are equal amounts of fools of all political persuasions, and not only that you have to have the potential for being able to know when you are wrong. Unfortunately biologically not everyone is equally gifted at monitoring and analyzing their own thought processes for errors. I'm not calling you inferior, I'm saying - you haven't done anywhere near the amount of hard work or reading because you live in an echo chamber of where you were born and it's quite obvious from your reactions that you are too emotionally invested in a particular view because thats what you want to see. Your opponents are frequently insightful.

Politics often functions the same way religions function - by where you are born and your culture. You are born into it and depending on your biological proclivities and your capacity and dedication to reasoning and truth and the time you put into it. When pursuing truth you only get out what you put in and it's obvious to everyone you haven't put enough time into it rather you are emotionally reactionary.

Which is why I think that guided sessions on psilocybin mushrooms could be healthy for people. It gives another perspective on your own through process.

/or maybe I'm as absurd as Freud was previously with thinking cocaine could be the miracle drug that helps open up sessions and break down walls to real analysis and perspective.

And I'm sure the parts about "pre-existing conditions" could have passed on its own with bipartisan support.

If 80% of the bill is bad and 20% is good, should you go ahead and vote for the bill because at least 20% is good?

The Republicans wanted the bill broken up where pieces that both sides agreed on could be voted through and then can the parts that were bad.

I'm going to be fair to President Obama though and point out most of the blame for the fiasco should go to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

@ ZakFiend

To be blunt I usually don't vote straight party, also I tend to do a lot of research on the National Level when it involves politics. I am something of a political junkie.

Further, you may not have seen some of the things I have seen during the 2008 election because I paid a lot of attention to what was going on online. I actually saw information being purged from websites in the course of hours.

I will be completely honest with you and say that originally during 08' I was for anybody but Hillary Clinton. I liked the idea of an African American becoming President (though I felt Obama didn't have enough experience and he should wait to 2012). When Sean Hannity started talking about Obama's radical associations my parents were thinking Sean went off the deep end, I was concerned he may have lost it as well, but I did my own research. After doing my research I discovered that Sean Hannity had actually done his homework on the issue and it was scary. Even more scary was when websites were scrubbing their sites to hide their associations with Obama. When I finished my researching I reached the conclusion that if the election were between Obama and Hillary Clinton, I would vote for Hillary Clinton.


On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladni ... z15a5SM7AB

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

http://web.archive.org/web/200103060312 ... p9610.html

The problem is that the US is polluted with dis-information of all kinds and its hellish to dis-entangle it all, I don't trust much of anything coming out of the net or media when dealing with politics, there is so much money poured into lies and propaganda.

Why do you think I did my own research... I did my own research to make sure that I wasn't being fed a bunch of lies. The fact that my research ended up matching what Sean Hannity was saying added to Hannity's credibility in my view though I still do research stuff to see if things line up.

yeah, zak! how do you think he learned the truth about those "death panels?"

You can stop with the sarcasm, because it was actually in the bill just because you don't see it as a death panel doesn't mean that there is not a legitimate argument to call it a death panel.

Actually what we know is that the "bailout" of banks was passed with a majority of the free market hating Pelosi Democrats, and only a minority of the Republicans in the House.

you first.

not all people with AS are like that
I for one am none of those things, and yet was diagnosed at 13

Logical people also know logic is limited - i.e. all principles and systems have limits or situations where they break down.