Posted on 12/20/2011 9:00:36 AM PST by broken_arrow1
Islam is a religion of cruelty and is a threat to American freedom.
That’s why Romney is unqualified to be president...he is either unwilling to see or incapable of seeing the enemy.
When O’Reilly interviewed Rick Perry, Perry flat out called Obama a Socialist.
O’Reilly said, “Really?”..do you really believe that ?”
Perry didn’t back down !
What a contrast to Mittens !
Isn't that a euphamism for Socialist??
But then says, "I'm probably not going to be calling him names so much."
Instant flip-flop! Just add camera and question!
Winnah!!!
Pretty good interview from O’Really.. I’ll have to admit..
Watching Myth twist and turn with the question was humorous in the extreme..
He just couldn’t mouth the words “SOCIALIST”... like he was having a delusional fit..
Brain washed, hypnotized or something..
If you vote for this idiot you’re part of the problem..
Probably brain washed or hypnotized yourself..
I will not vote for a coward who has to parse words.
Give me the “undisciplined” Gingrich over this assclown Romney any day.
OF COURSE Ubama is a socialist. And “socialist” is just the polite word for “communist”.
Po-TAY-to, Pah-TAH-to
AMEN
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.
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...
FIFY
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.
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...
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.)
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.
"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:
|
|
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
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.
Yeah, I guess you’re right “at least you know what you are getting”
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AGAIN if you vote 3rd party.
Yeah, I guess you’re right “at least you know what you are getting”
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AGAIN if you vote 3rd party.
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.