Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

You could look at it that way or you could see it as give the states the right.

If it were a law that all states had to abide by because if it became federal law, gay marriage would not be allowed period.

If you look at trends of the past and phasing in plans, this is how it works.

Look at how marijuana became outlawed. It took one person who hated marijuana (and hispanics +blacks) to push his agenda and look at how it exists now.

Another thing I like about Ron Paul is that he knows the war on drugs is not to be won. All of these wars.

Now we have the wars on gays, the wars on drugs (still) however we have pharmaceuitcals and anti-psychotics given to children meanwhile spreading an anti-drug message in their school using whatever cutesy method they use now.

These people in charge keep creating more wars inside of America that will never be won and are really targets of people they don't get. For example Bush has said before "I don't understand poor people" he clearly showed he doesn't care about them either.

Then we have the war on cigarettes which is a war on poor people clearly indicated when there is no war on cigars. Cigars are fine because it's an aquired taste by rich people however blunts are a different story entirely and it wouldn't shock me if that became targetted.

Where is the war on cocaine?

It's not about these deadly drugs at all. It's about who takes them. There are certain drugs that are just fine because it's the rich drug. Crystal meth is not good because teens take them, which yes that stuff is really bad but then we have ritalin which acts alot like crystal meth.

I for one am sick of people claiming to care about children and drugs when clearly they don't care at all. Our society has clearly shown that there is need for a real change and the only one with enough guts to bring forth that change is someone who has been "iced" from the mainstream and thinks differently.

Someone who dresses differently in the guise of being different isn't a threat.

Someone who truely is different and thinks differently is the biggest threat ever. Having said that, this big threat has alot of good ideas and not just ideas but ways to bring them forth.

Why should we listen to another mainstream lie about he or she who has the most support by the press shall win and you should not even put any stock in the candidate we think is too different.

He has alot of support even with mainstream's bashings.

Just to remind people - if Ron Paul were to become President, there would no longer be any help for us Aspies - no special classes, counselling, aid to adult aspies who can't fend for themselves... He is just another as*hole who wants to steal from the poor and give to the rich... like those other Republican as*holes who want to do the same. To vote for any of these Republicans, you'd have to be either very rich, or very ignorant.

Thank you for that reminder, we wouldn't know what to think otherwise.

I read this thread because I wondered how or if AS affected our political views. Apparently very little or not in ways that I expected. Some aspies are so fiercly independent that they just want the government (and everyone else) to leave them the hell alone and others want to be taken care of cradle to grave.

I do find it interesting that Ron Paul is the only candidate mentioned in this forum (very brief search). I like him if for no other reason than that he is by far the most consistant. You know he will say the same things next year as he did yesterday. Us aspies do like a well ordered world, no?

Well, hard to say given that this is the internet. There are or have been some fierce conservatives here, but most people seem to just be left-wingers with a some capitalistic libertarians popping in and out from occasion.

Many candidates are mentioned. Ron Paul gets the most attention though. Your logic though could justify a lot of choices, at least in terms of getting a well ordered world, not in that the most consistent candidate is the best.

Ed, I don't get help and who runs organizations who do help adults with aspergers?

What cities and states have help for adults with aspergers? Also, the government right now is upset about the autism "epidemic" because it's draining their wallets.

How does Ron Paul want to give to the rich considering a heavy burden would be lifted from the poor with no income tax.

Has anyone ever been to a welfare office here in this thread? What happened when you showed up? Alot of people are being turned away and all it takes is a caseworker to decide who gets it and in some cases and states, people are being turned down for a multitude of reasons also, unemployment.

Unemployment, a person seeks it gets turned down because the boss lies and claimed the employee was a no show. The boss wins.

People think these govt. programs are just so great when really people in need of assistance get turned down left and right.

My grandmother who is now deceased for example needed assistance. She got thirty dollars a month because a caseworker decided that is all she deserved. She was poor, very poor and a widow.

All of these people who talk about how great these programs are most likely have never witnessed first hand what goes on and how many people are actually turned away.

I definitely plan on voting for Ron Paul. All the other candidates want to make our big government even bigger and more powerful. Ron Paul is the only worthy candidate running for President.

As a woman who supports women's rights, there's no way in hell I'd ever support Ron Paul.

Don't support this man. He is an enemy of God. He supports the NESARA, the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act. It is the economic system under Antichrist! Be forewarned.

Support him if you like though, that's all I have to say on this subject.

What women's rights does he oppose? I plan on voting for Ron Paul, but if he has a problem with women I want to know so I don't vote for him.



I never heard of NESARA. A brief description would be nice if you want to convince people to not vote for him.

I guess I should have known. I'm always confused how standing up and protecting the life of an innocent (unborn) child is somehow considered opposing a woman's right to something. Yea, it's a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy, but it's about a child not the woman. It's about whether an unborn child has a right to life. Shouldn't the child choose whether or not he wants to live when he's older? If my mom aborted me, I wouldn't be here today. I'm the one who would be affected, not her. I don't think anyone should be allowed to take away an innocent person's life - that's anti-freedom to me. If by womens rights, you mean to not have children, then there's always adoption. So what right of women is he opposing?

I used to be very much against legalized abortion, but one day a woman asked me "Do you really think you could stop that?"

I thought to myself for a while, and realized that no, I don't.

And since I don't think it can be stopped, I'd prefer if women had access to clean hospitals and trained doctors, to minimize the likelihood of causing their own death.

Add to that the amount of suffering which might be inflicted on some children, and I think abortion might just be the more humane option in some cases.

I'm all for limiting the number of abortions, but wouldn't it be easier to do by increasing education and access to birth control, promoting adoption(on television, even) and increasing aid to those women who get abortions because they don't think they could afford children?

I see what you're saying and I agree abortion can't be stopped. In Roman times, mothers who didn't want children took them to them mountain after delivering them and left them their for lions to devour them. If someone is really intent on killing someone, it won't matter if it's illegal. However, if abortion is illegal, I'm sure you'll agree it will occur less often.

Regarding womens health, I see where it can be considered a woman's right - her right to safely terminate her pregnancy to protect her own health. If she were terminating a medical blob instead of a human life, then I would definitely be pro-choice and so would everyone else. The reason people oppose abortion is because they care about children. If we're talking about anything other than someone else's life, all of us will support allowing women to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

I think the real question regarding abortion seems to be the value of the unborn child. Pro-life people see the unborn as human and consider it murder to terminate their life while pro-choice people see the unborn as either not human or not human enough for it to be wrong to terminate their life.

A life is definitely being terminated. Our lives started at conception and we've been growing ever since. People who are pro-choice say the life starts out non-human and then becomes human after it has grown to a certain point. There's no scientific evidence that a life becomes human at a certain point because it's entirely subjective. You can say it becomes human after it's a certain size, or if it can breathe, or if it can survive on its own. That's why an abortion at 24 weeks is perfectly legal in some states yet considered murder in other states. Some people support abortions at 6 months even though some babies are born prematurely before 6 months. That would make killing a life at 6 months from conception murder if it's outside of the womb but okay if it's done while inside the womb even though the life we're talking about is identical in each case with the only difference being the location of the life or whatever its called.



If someone is going to abort, then I agree it's more humane if it's done properly. However, the result is that more pregnancies will be terminated.



Education and adoption would definitely help reduce abortions so I support that although I'm curious why you want to limit abortions. If women are aborting medical blobs, then what difference does it make? If they're aborting humans, then allowing any abortions is condoning murder.

I didn't say that aborting was eliminating medical blobs. Keep in mind that I was once very anti-legalized-abortion.

My goal would be to limit suffering. Clearly a fetus would develop into a human, but I don't know when a fetus develops the ability to feel pain, so I would like to make abortion a less common procedure. I would think the best way to make it less common would be to make it less desired.

As for whether outlawing abortion decreases its frequency, CNN recently cited statistics which said

I don't see abortion as desirable, and I don't think it's something people should or do take lightly. I just don't think outlawing it really helps.

I bet that either it was a biased study, the penalties are minor, or the laws aren't enforced. If the penalty is severe and enforced, then certainly someone would be deterred.

Regardless, I believe the life of the unborn is just as valuable as the life of the born. If that's true, it should be illegal for the sake of justice even if it doesn't deter anyone.



It seems like you're saying the life of the unborn has some value. More than a blob but less than a human.



That's always a good goal.



A mother could give her recently born child a pain killer and then kill him without him suffering pain but it still wouldn't make it right.

I still think the only question is the value of the unborn. If the value = 0 then everyone should be allowed to abort whenever they want. If the value = human, then it's never ok except maybe to protect the woman's health.

My point earlier is that Ron Paul isn't anti-women. He doesn't oppose women's rights. He just believes that the value of an unborn child is the same as a born child and wants to protect the unborn. The only choice or right he wants to take away from women is their right to kill what he believes to be a human life. To him, abortion is similar to a mother choosing to kill her 2 year old son because she decides she no longer wants children. Ron Paul wouldn't have any problem with a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy if he placed less value on the unborn (if he thought the unborn was worthless and still opposed abortion, then he would be opposing women's rights). I believe Ron Paul should be allowed to make this decision based on what he feels is right since no one can say with any authority that the unborn isn't human.

As a woman, I feel confident with my choice. It's still Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wants the troops home and as commander in chief, he can do that. Being president does not mean you get everything that you want. You don't get all the rules that you want either...but you can refuse to eat broccoli.