Does my friend have aspergers

Post Reply New Topic

My friend is really into politics (and star wars) and pretty much nothing else, but when we talk about either of these things he takes it really too far even though we stopped listening a while ago. Also he doesnt seem to understand when we disagree with him it isnt because we hate him its just that he says things that are wrong sometimes. Like he'll totally be wrong about a definition of a word and when we post the dictionary definition he'll say we hate him.

Anyway heres a post from him responding to one of our other friends. Please tell me what you think. (He's obsessed with Obama btw)

_________________________
Well, you could have left a multi-parter like I did. I really don't mind if you clutter up my page with text. Or you could have PMed me. Despite instructing everyone else to ignore, you know that all you're doing is inviting people to gang up on me since the liberal-conservative ratio here is about ninety-nine percent to one percent. I don't find that very fair.

Still, I'm sure you mean well, so I will attempt to reply to your claims to the best of my ability, even if it means I have to do a little research:

Wong. All businesses, without exception, exist for one reason: to make a profit. They do not exist to provide a public service or engage in any altruistic behavior. If those who own or control a business wish to do those things, fine. But it is neither expected nor required.

They have no moral obligation to do anything other than sell their products and/or services at a profit to benefit their shareholders. Period. Their products only need to be good enough to be in demand and win out over their competitors' products.

However, free-market capitalism involves competition among companies which tends to force companies to produce products that are better and cost less. Again, the obligation is to shareholders, and no one else.



It is very true, sadly, that several corporations have opted to "cook the books" to try to show a healthy bottom line when the financial situation is, in fact, quite grim. This is not the norm, however; we hear about Global Crossing and Enron and their ilk, but there are literally tens of thousands of other businesses that are notengaging in these underhanded tactics.

Misleading shareholders is (and should be) illegal. And punishment for doing this should be swift and brutally severe, in my opinion.



That's demonstrably false. We have the history to prove it.

It is true we need laws in order to have liberty; anarchy is not a very liberating environment. (And no, my screen name is not meant to imply that I believe in or endorse anarchy. Darth Anarcus was the name of a Sith Lord I created for the Star Wars rollplaying game years ago. ) And it stands that we need some degree of regulation and laws curtailing practices that would create very bad situations for the free market (eg: anti-monopoly laws). No one is disputing that.

But our own prosperity, which has until the last few decades been blissfully free of socialism, proves that a capitalist system can and does flourish far, far better than anything else.



There are two problems with this statement.

1) Look at how bad the middle east is on its own. The problems of our current system don't even compare to the atrocities committed by middle eastern terrorists on a daily basis.

2) China has the same system that these libs adore so much, but we still have Chinese immigrants coming en mass to our own country, despite our "greedy capitalism" (I guess the fact that they just want to keep their own money makes them evil and greedy as well ).

I ask you: have you ever been to a country that practice socialism? And if you claim that it wouldn't matter because the leaders became corrupt and the socialism wasn't done right, then what makes them think it will be any different here (human nature hungers for power)? How many people die in the name of socialism or communism every time it is implemented? Though they may not say it, the argument is basically, "Well, we just haven't gotten it right yet." So when will they get it right? If these systems, despite how many times they are redefined, reinvented or reformed, have brought nothing but widespread poverty, chances are, the system is inherently flawed. Sure, it may work in theory, but a lot of things work in theory, including Nazism. But ideas are one thing and reality is another. These things can only be judged on how well they work in practice.

And let us compare numbers. How many people has modern capitalism killed? Zero.

How many people has socialism killed, modern or otherwise? Over seventy million.



There is no such thing as "modern democracy". There has never been a successful truly democratic nation. That is mob rule, and it should be avoided like the plague.

We live in a Republic. Republics work great, provided a) those who serve to represent us are not corrupt, and b) the people who are being represented are paying attention to those who serve to represent us.

The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. -Plato

That was true 2,400 years ago, and it's true today. Just wait until Obama really gets going...



That's actually a fair point. We have lost our way. But rather than try to follow in the footsteps of others who have fallen flat on their faces, we need to return to what made America great once: smaller government with a limited scope, a populace that pays attention to what our officials are doing, and the elimination of onerous taxes and absurd regulations and laws designed to strangle American business and prop up foreign businesses.

I especially agree with the "this is not republical vs. democrat" line. More on that below:



See, you hit the nail on the head in the first half of this paragraph, and this is a point I wish to make: conservatives are not party people. It is true that most of us are attracted to the Republican Party as it is the party we have most identified with over the course of US history. However, it would be invalid to characterize the Republic Party itself as conservative. We continue to see a division in the party between those of traditional conservative values and those adopting a more moderate - and sometimes even liberal - way of thinking, as can be exemplified in the person of our latest presidential candidate, John McCain.

It sort of irks me when people on here characterize my beliefs as "republican," to the point where I'm actually thinking of joining the Libertarian Party - or, in an even more extreme display, the Democratic Party - just to prove this point. I am an idealist, not an avid follower of a certain political party. I am a conservative above all else, who happens to be a republican. This is where I think many people fail to understand the ideology behind it all: the inability to differentiate conservatives from republicans. The terms are not intermingled nor are they synonymous.

I also wish to point out that conservatives do not believe in putting their faith in any one person. There are so many people out there who unequivocally, unapologetically and wholeheartedly support President Obama no matter what he does, and even go so far as to push this idol worship onto their children. They can't see past the personality and charisma. He can make any mistake in the world, but he will always be too big to fail in their eyes. They are completely incapable of taking a step back and weighing everything the man does, for better or for worse. No, their only concern is, and will always be, polishing the Messiah's halo.

Conservative republicans - and conservatives in general - never elevate their elected leaders to such godlike status. It is true that, despite his failings, I was and still am quite happy to have had Bush instead of Gore or Kerry (and I know I'll be unpopular for saying that), but I never believed Bush to be too good to let me down, nor was I ever mortified when he did so. (George W. Bush, it should be known, is not a conservative. He is conservative on some - or perhaps even many - issues, but, like John McCain, he has never exemplified conservatism in all its glory. I tend to use Ronald Reagan as the template as far as comparison goes.) Like any presidential victor - whether I was for or against them during the elections - I have judged all of them fairly, equally and in a balanced manner. I will support them when I feel they are right and be their harshest critics when they are wrong.

It should also be noted that, just as conservatives do not unilaterally support any one person, they are not unilaterally opposed to any one person, either. It is not that we do not support Barack Obama himself. We support every president and the office of the presidency itself. We do not support most of his policies and the way he carries things out. Among true conservatives, there is never any hatred toward any person or persons.



Let's recap:

1. The Founders of the United States sought to create a country in which people had equal opportunity in which they would be free to reap the benefits of their hard work. There was never a desire to see to equal outcome or redistribution of wealth from those who worked to those who did not.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson

Free market capitalism is not a recent innovation in this country. In fact, we have not had truly free markets in decades. The Founders believed fervently in free trade and a government that was not a burden to the people, either from the perspective of over-regulation or onerous taxation.



2. The Founders didn't fear socialism per se because it didn't exist yet as a political ideology (apart from what the pilgrims before them had come to this country to experiment with and failed at miserably, at which point the instated a free-market system that flourished; but it was not a widely known concept at the time). What they feared was a totalitarian regime: tyranny. And socialism is another brand of tyranny.

During the United States' most prosperous years, a mere five percent of the world's population has produced well over ninety percent of the wealth in the world. Why? Free market capitalism. We share that wealth, in spite of what some may say about our greed. Indeed, Americans give more to those in need, both inside and outside the country, than any other people.

What we are seeing today is rampant abuse of the Constitution by the Federal government. Read the Constitution, paying particularly close attention to the powers given Congress in Article I Section 8, and also the 9th and 10th Amendments. You will quickly see that Congress has grossly overstepped its bounds in levying taxes to pay for programs our government has no business in.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson



“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” - James Madison



"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin



It bears mentioning that Socialism, in its many forms, fails. Always. Whether it's the failure of Canadian and British health care systems which force citizens to seek care outside their own countries, or socialism in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea.

People do best when they are left alone. Government cannot and never will be able to provide all things to all people. (Besides, as Jefferson once said, "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.")



3. "Liberal," for the the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution - as well as for conservatives - referred to liberty, not liberalism. There is a gargantuan difference. When you think of liberty, what do you think of? Freedom, right? Me too. When you think of liberalism (and I think that any person, whether conservative, liberal, or anything in between, if they are honest with themselves), what do you think of? Doing things the unconventional way? Not adhering to the rules? Being sort of "lose," without restraint. If so, me too.

But, you see, liberalism, in the identity it has taken on today, is in every way opposed to liberty. You guys want things taken care of however that may come to pass, in a liberal (i.e free) manner, correct? Yet, it seems to me as if - no offense - every single one of you has been "programmed." Not only do you all seem to hold basic core beliefs, or dogmas (despite claiming that such a thing is conservatism's weakness), but your debate strategies, for the most part, all seem to be uniform: a pitchfork-wielding angry mob. I'm just going on what I've seen, both here and in the outside world; but I've noticed a tendency to demonize whatever or whomever it is you are arguing against. You will attack the person of the opposite opinion personally - whether provoked or unprovoked - and just gang up on anyone with a different world view than yours. To me, this shows a usually unconscious - and sometimes conscious - way of dealing with people in general that is ingrained into your psyche by various forms of media and entertainment. (This applies to most liberals, not all. I have met a few whom I can say are genuinely pleasant people one hundred percent of the time, even when someone's opinion differs, and you know who you are. There are others, however, who appear to be the nicest people in the world most of the time, but the minute a differing political opinion is uttered, they instantly become attack dogs. You also know who you are. From my experience it is the latter group that encompasses most strains of liberalism.)

Also, while liberalism may, admittedly, produce many great ideas, I just don't think they are realistic. Liberalism is, in my humble opinion, a wishing game that is not grounded in reality.

Not only that, but it strikes me as a negative train of thought. I have yet to meet a happy liberal! Now, I don't mean "happy" as in "Yeah, everything's great in my life. No breakups, nobody died, everyone's healthy, skies are blue, everything's peachy." I mean complete political contentment. Liberals are constantly politically upset about something. They constantly need a demon; a sacrificial lamb to place all of their woes upon, unable to stop and look at what the problem really is.

Another thing is the misconception of what exactly conservatism is. The libs want you to equate "conservative" with "old-fashioned," and that is simply a huge misconception. The media wants you to think that if you are conservative, you are doomed to be as grandma and grandpa are, and that is utter bantha poodoo. They will use anything in your life against you: "Do you have sex? Do you drink? So you smoke pot? Well, conservatism is out of the question because you don't want to be a boring goody-two-shoes. Join us and be opposed to everything conservatism stands for! Think like us and you will be cool. Who wants to be an old-fashioned loser anyway?"

This is leftist propaganda at its finest. Conservatism does not attempt to control the most private facets of your life. Those are up to you to define when you are of age, and for your parents to help mold when you are young. Conservatism is purely political morality, not what one does with his or her life or which lifestyle they may choose.

It's not too late, Sith Lords! I've overcome the dark side, and you can too! Come, join us! Become Jedi once again!

Yeah, I had to throw that one in. It's me.



In conclusion, my own personal belief is that conservatism is the way of common sense and free thinking, and liberalism is a corruption of common sense based on some distorted version of free thinking (which, in reality, is not free at all). Those are, once again, my own opinions.


Anyway, that's my rant for now. Pick it apart, call me stupid or misinformed, insult my mother (whom I still live with), call me a redneck racist, or what ever it is that you do. Quite frankly, it's a tad useless arguing in a against an entire message board that doesn't agree. Wouldn't you, er... agree? I am officially burned out for now. Time for pizza.
_____________________

To anyone who reads all that and can shed some light on his condition, thanks for your help Everytime I send him resources on aspergers he ignores me.

yes. lol. don't tell him though ... let a professional do that.

I'd just tell him to be a little more mature when debating. Getting a diagnosis probably sounds scary to him, he might not have it anyway, and there's not much point. If there's no problem, just let things be.