Well, now we have it; now we have the topic that I have been circling around for some time. That is right, I have been circling around koolaid drinkers, rose-tinted glasses wearers, and the like. Did you guess that? Now, do keep in mind that I am not talking about people who actually drink the drink (though, with the religious fad part, I might be) that I recenly learned that by asdding ground horseshoe you can make into jello. I am talking about people who are so devoted to an idea/person/cause that it can d no wrong, and that it is always perfect and rights. I am talking about the die hard fans, the cult members, the 'ites' of the world.
Too many people run through life with rose-tinted shades on (which is only acceptable if they are Beatles), believing only what they want to, and not accepting anything else. Really, there are many problems with people who drink too much koolaid. While most problems have already been pointed out in these last few posts, there are three main ones that bug me the most: Their 'issue' is never wrong - they believe anything said/put out by their person/group - they can only see the good parts.
Their 'issue' is never wrong:
This is one of my biggest issues with people who drink too much koolaid. They feel that their issue/candidate/group is never wrong. Too many people think that Obama is right, no matter how he changed over the time. They feel the same about Ron Paul, their religions, and the like. No matter how little the change is, no matter how big it is, they always think that the change did not happen, that the position was always the same. This has several self evident problems; if you always are right then you have problems accepting others, let alone seeing the actual truth.
They believe anything said/put out by their person/group:
Anonymous claims that Scientologists are stalking their group members; McCain says that NAFTA is good for America; Obama says that he is for leaving Iraq. Propaganda is easy enough to distribute to people who think clearly, why do you let it get to you when you can not think. People who wear glasses always will believe what their issue says, no matter what it is. You can make the most absurd claim and it gets believe by the masses, because they are that in love with you. This is how Hitler came to be, this is how Caesar got the populace to love him. When people close their mind nothing good can come of it.
They can only see the good parts:
Ron Paul has some good things (I suppose) and some bad, as does Obama, Scientology, Celebrities, the Democrat Party, and the rest. I can see the good, the bad, and the ugly, as can most of us. The problems is that the shade wears can not. They see only the good. They see sexism inherent when Hillary makes a mistake, they see Racism when Wright is brought up, they see ageism when McCain gets attacked for not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiite. These people see their candidate as good, and everybody else (especially those who criticize their person) as being wrong. One can point out facts, data, anything, and these people still will only see the good. The problems with this are obvious, how can anybody be expected to learn if there is only good in the world. The question becomes, is it worth falling so in love with an ideal that you can not see the forest, let alone the trees?
As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga
6 comments:
I'm unashamedly a Ron Paul fan. I became a fan when I saw him onstage debating the locksteppers of the GOP. I watched him give no-nonsense answers about the war, our monetary system and abuses to our rights that the others onstage either lied about, gave longwinded speeches without answering questions, snickered and rolled their eyes at the mere mention of the constitution...and only McCain is left using John Kerry's failed "I'm a war hero" platform.
The Democrats did nothing but try to out "government freebie" each other and show everyone that the democratic party is now just a renamed and repackaged socialist party.
And then there were 2. Scandal riddled and shot at by snipers Hillary and, Mr "I had no idea my pastor hates white people after listening to him say it for 20 years" Obama.
I have trouble believing anything Hillary that comes from Clinton's mouth and, seen Obama too often step back and consult one of his handlers before answering a question at those town hall meetings...if he even answers it!
So for me it's Ron Paul. I like the idea that a candidate refers to our constitution for presidential authority and that he's the ONLY candidate that respects the constitution enough to do so.
He's also the ONLY candidate that calls the pariot act unconstitutional.
What patriot needs a patriot act?
You have reasoning why he is good, which means, for the most part, you do not fit this category. The issue is, how does Paul follow the constitution (as he claims) when he doesn't in certain areas.
Well, name me some areas where he isn't.
Paul is very astute where constitutional issues are concerned whereas no other candidate is at all.
I voted in my first election in 1988. Here we are at 2008 and, this is the very first time any candidate has taken a pro- constitutional position toward governing.
The democrats have been trying to play santa claus to the lazy while the GOP has been trying to cloak everything in secrecy.
BOTH parties have been nibbling away at out rights and liberties in small almost unnoticable increments while granting the government (themselves) more power over us.
Unless we get somebody who has respect for the constitution and our rights into office, we're screwed as a free society.
When I was your age, the very idea that OUR government would spy on us, allow torture, jail people without cause or access to a lawyer, remove the burden of proof to jail you, tap your phone without a warrant...was unheard of and unbelievable.
At age 20 you're just now becomming aware of the government and entering the scene with all this crap already in place that wasn't there 8 years ago...and shouldn't be.
It's gotten to the point where our elections are simply choosing who will be administering our sedatives for the next 4 years.
-----Well, name me some areas where he isn't.
Paul is very astute where constitutional issues are concerned whereas no other candidate is at all.-----
Depends how we are using the word. However, his actions on limiting the courts show he is not, his opinion on Roe V Wade shows he is not, etc.
-----When I was your age, the very idea that OUR government would spy on us, allow torture, jail people without cause or access to a lawyer, remove the burden of proof to jail you, tap your phone without a warrant...was unheard of and unbelievable.-----
Really, because Watergate was in that time
Roe V Wade shouldn't be a FEDERAL decision it should be a state decision if anything. Paul is anti-abortion BUT...has never said he'd outlaw it on a federal level since constitutionaly, he hasn't the authority.
As for Watergate, THAT was done ILLEGALLY...today it can be done legally without a warrant and for whatever reason the "investigator" feels is good enough. THAT can be anything. Piss off your neighbor who knows a DHS worker and they can read your e-mails, run your credit, run your credit card transactions, find out what books you get from the library, monitor your websurfing, bug your home, listen to your cell phone conversations, check who you call, access your medical records and on and on.
The Watergate people (minus Nixon) went to jail for what they did.
The guy who snoops you today won't!
-----Roe V Wade shouldn't be a FEDERAL decision it should be a state decision if anything. Paul is anti-abortion BUT...has never said he'd outlaw it on a federal level since constitutionaly, he hasn't the authority.-----
Why should it not be up to the federal courts if something is constitutional or not?
The patriot act is slowly being eroded, thankfully
Post a Comment