There is a pathetic tactic I have seen used time after time against those of us who value freedom. It almost seems as though those who pull it out of their hats (?) are following a script. It happens nearly anytime we freedom advocates say anything against one or another of the latest government schemes enacted or enhanced since Obama was coronated.
When those of us who are unimpressed by the latest socialist voter-bribing scheme speak out in opposition, we are usually treated to this gem: "Why weren't you speaking out like this while Bush was president?" Faced with that absurd question, all I can think of is "Why weren't you paying attention while I was speaking out against Bush's despicable acts while he was president?"
I'll tell you why the socialists didn't hear or notice: because they could only hear the chorus of their own gums flapping. If everyone is singing in harmony, you only hear that note which is discordant. Now that they are the ones busily singing their consent they can notice the notes of opposition. And they don't like it. They wrongly assume that anyone who dislikes Obama now must have been singing Bush's praises during his reign. That is a faulty assumption, and in my case couldn't be further from the truth.
Remember this, statists of whatever kind- Those of us who value individuals and their freedom don't change our minds just because the current POTUS changes. A difference which makes no difference is no different. Don't assume that we are like you. We have principles.
Comments
Indeed! I still get shocked and horrified looks when I inform such people that I didn't vote for ANYONE, and never will.
I don't need a "president" any more than I need a nanny or a jailer.
You know the bumperstickers that say "If you're not completely appalled, you're not paying attention"? Most of their owners, in my experience, seem to think that this appalling behavior started on January 20th in 2001. Oh, there's a few out there who might argue the same date in 2009, or 1993, or 1989, but Kent's point remains.
Little revelations are good for all of us, and the purists would probably do well to encourage even these small steps like figuring out that government does horrible things in YOUR name. But...
What I'd like to see next is the next revelation, going to Kent's point here, that collectivism's success depends--utterly--on individuals being entirely fungible commodities, even presidents, even "heroes".
They are simply swapped out, if one of them ever goes off the reservation and starts to get people questioning the validity of the system that produces them. Replacing one individual with another doesn't cost the state anything.
How about that?
Many of these ninnies seem to be eager to play the race card, too. Any opposition of Obama's policies must, they seem to think, arise from racist motives.
So I turn both bits of business around on them and ask, "Where were you when Woodrow Wilson was segregating the civil service?"
Oh, you weren't born yet? Well, too bad. You can't object to racism now if you weren't protesting Wilson then.
It shut up a few.
I have that problem within my own family. Never has one of them heard me be anything but disapproving of GWB, yet they now accuse me of being a fan because I oppose the jug-eared jackass in the White House.
I do not think it was because they weren't paying attention, I think it is because they are dishonest. I hate believing that of my family, but I have no choice.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!