Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

O‘Reilly Asks Romney if Obama Is ’a Socialist’ & He Says…
TheBlaze.com ^ | Dec. 20, 2011 | Becket Adams

Posted on 12/20/2011 9:00:36 AM PST by broken_arrow1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: trisham

McRomney won’t call Obama a socialist, but he will call all his fellow REPUBLICAN nominees all kinds of negative names. If he gets the nomination, on election night, if you recorded McCain-obama election night, just put it on about 7:00 PM, fast forward it to the end where obama made his victory speech, and then go to bed. You will have missed NOT A THING.


51 posted on 12/20/2011 10:38:53 AM PST by jmax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: newheart

Here’s how it works:

Had Romney called Obama a “Socialist”, then within hours, Romney would have been labeled a “racist”, and Romney would wet his pants...


52 posted on 12/20/2011 10:42:33 AM PST by TheBattman (They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PALIN SMITH
Islam is a religion of cruelty DEATH CULT and is a threat to American freedom.<<

FIFY

53 posted on 12/20/2011 10:45:50 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: piytar

As a friend of mine keeps advising me when I complain that my job sucks:
“The checks don’t bounce.”
“The checks don’t bounce.”
“The checks don’t bounce.”
“The checks don’t bounce.”
.......

And, while a vigorous debate regarding the various candidates is good and healthy, “...let’s keep our eyes on the ball people...” as Michael Douglas suggests at one point in “The American President”.

“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
“We MUST, ABSOULTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY defeat Obama in 2012.”
.......

So, let’s ix-nay on the third party BS shall we? If we don’t UNANIMOUSLY vote for WHOEVER crawls out from under the dog pile, Obama will be back and each and every one of you who votes for ANYONE other than the GOP candidate will be PERSONALLY to blame for assisting that SPECIOUS and Republic-As-We-Know-It event to take place and that INCLUDES voting for PALIN as third party, write-in or wishful dreaming.

Remember the Perot elections (1992 @ 19% & 1996 @ 8%) - even though he withdrew, he siphoned off enough votes to put Clinton in the White House for EIGHT YEARS.


54 posted on 12/20/2011 10:46:44 AM PST by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CanuckYank

Um, while I completely agree, why direct that to me? I was not the one advocating third party. That would be collective suicide for America...


55 posted on 12/20/2011 10:59:47 AM PST by piytar (The Obama Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CanuckYank

PS Ron Paul will not get the nomination. His PaulBot army pushing a bunch of polls means NOTHING. Ergo, no need for third party. (I would probably vote for MittCare if he got the GOP nod, but I wouldn’t like it, and frankly he would only be marginally better than obastard.)


56 posted on 12/20/2011 11:02:06 AM PST by piytar (The Obama Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1
In a true "no spin" zone, Romney should have been pressed to define the difference between what he calls a "big government liberal" and a "socialist." As Obama told us a few years ago, "words matter." Without definition, however, they are worthless, as in "hope and change."

With that said, however, even on the subject of what Romney loves to repeatedly call the "private sector," he falls short of explaining why and how that very description is inadequate to persuade citizens of the reasons for preferring "private" as opposed to "public." Romney, so far, shows no in-depth understanding or aptitude for explaining the concept.

On the other hand, in debating Obama's deeply-held talking points on what so-called "progressives" call the glorious "public sector" solutions to all our problems, Newt's understanding would allow him to sharply contrast how "public solution," lead to coercive control and slavery to government vs. the Founders' system of liberty through "individual enterprise" and benign(see Madison below) government influence and involvement. One idea leads to slavery and the other to individual freedom and opportunity.

The Founders' principle of freedom for individual enterprise brought America from poverty and using the crude tools of ancient Europe to the most free, progressive and prosperous destination for oppressed peoples. See the following essay excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution," a 292-page history of the ideas of liberty in America, again available after 20 years of being out of print.

Freedom Of Individual Enterprise

The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson

"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison

America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.

The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.

The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:

  • acquire and own property
  • have access to free markets
  • produce what they wanted
  • work for whom and at what they wanted
  • travel and live where they would choose
  • acquire goods and services which they desired

Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tend­ed to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:

Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.


Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

57 posted on 12/20/2011 11:41:26 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1
For all who wish to read about the kind of person who needs to run against Obama in 2012, read this FR today.

To counter and defeat the tyrannical ideas of socialism/communism which have invaded the halls of government in America today, one must be able to wield the weapon of truth. Only truth is an adequate antidote to the lies of socialism.

Watering it down by being unwilling to name the ideas for what they are simply will not convince generations of Americans who have not been taught the ideas of liberty.

58 posted on 12/20/2011 11:52:57 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Yeah, I guess you’re right “at least you know what you are getting”

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AGAIN if you vote 3rd party.


59 posted on 12/20/2011 12:20:57 PM PST by MotherRedDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Yeah, I guess you’re right “at least you know what you are getting”

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AGAIN if you vote 3rd party.


60 posted on 12/20/2011 12:21:07 PM PST by MotherRedDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Yeah, I guess you’re right “at least you know what you are getting”

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AGAIN if you vote 3rd party.


61 posted on 12/20/2011 12:21:13 PM PST by MotherRedDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Vader
It is amazing that we call him a communist without reservation, and the president laughs and calls this characterization absurd.

This president grew up in a communist country learning the values that he now implements here. You can't undo what you learn from the age of 5 to 10. It is like asking someone to tie their shoes with a different knot. Like cement setting, the president became a communist between 1965 and 1970. It's just what he is.

62 posted on 12/20/2011 12:37:04 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge; broken_arrow1; newheart

I agree that we should vote for the most conservative candidate possible - in the primary. Any vote for someone other than the Republican nominee, in the General election - even if Romney - is the same as a vote for Obama. I can’t stomach that.


63 posted on 12/20/2011 12:56:51 PM PST by Tandem (What ever happened to personal responsibility & self-reliance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newheart
The quote is not completely accure...Romney replied when asked if Obama is a socialist by saying "I don't want to call anyone names....."
To Romney, if you call some one a socialist it's not identifying their political ideology but rather its name calling! Just like McCain...a panderer reaching across the aisle!!
64 posted on 12/20/2011 1:31:56 PM PST by orinoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
within hours, Romney would have been labeled a “racist”, and Romney would wet his pants...

He might as well get that out of the way early. Obama really has two cards. The Mormon card and the race card. He (or rather his surrogates) will use both if Romney is the candidate.

65 posted on 12/20/2011 3:41:31 PM PST by newheart (Newt's a loose cannon, but at least he knows who the real target is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: piytar

No matter who you like and who crawls out from under the dog pile, the PROCESS is valuable, because many of the will make comments that a large part of the voting public will NEVER see anywhere but during one of these so-called “debates”.

What they are I don’t know, but they sure as he!! don’t resemble any debate process I was exposed to in high school or college!


66 posted on 12/23/2011 10:03:39 AM PST by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: piytar

No offense intended, after reviewing your post, I may have clicked on the wrong comment to reply to, but was trying to underscore the fact that the fanatical attitudes expressed on FR for or against ANY given candidate MUST at the end be put aside in order to achieve the ONLY real goal we have - firing Obee and his band of criminals, loonies and idiots.

Any talk of third party or write-ins is __________ (pick any negative adjective (eg dumb, counterproductive, suicidal, etc etc)


67 posted on 12/23/2011 10:10:11 AM PST by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

You said it before I did. You nailed it....Romney is the same as Obama, A SOCIALIST!-—but worse-—he lies more, if that can be possible.

Actually, I think they are both pure Marxists-—because they also deny God and Natural Law-—and want to force laws to make children think sodomy is good and the Bible is hate speech. They are forcing the Atheist paradigm on our military and in our society and schools—when our Natural Rights come from God. It is really sick and will totally transform this once Christian nation and remove God and our Natural Rights.


68 posted on 01/13/2012 10:02:57 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson