A Vote For Romney is a Vote Against Socialism

Townhall.com ^ | September 7, 2012 | Diana West

[familyop]

Thank you for the reply. I’ll be frank and honest with you. The following is not directed at you. It’s what I see in politics, federal and local.

I don’t like seeing vulgarities, hysteria, false accusations or promotions of panic in public political speech. Since most political people put the Clintons into office, the Democrats began more commonly using such speech. Now we see such speech from Republicans.

I will not vote in favor of the desires of socialists, NIMBYs, misogamists (those who hate families), heterophobics, malicious gossips, animal worshipers, bureaucrats, HOA queens, environmentalists, vulgar celebrities, social workers, planners, idle building inspectors, urchins, government school teachers, drug addicts, NGOs, those who desire to violate our Constitution, those who are traitorous against the USA in business, those who desire to violate our Bill of Rights or those wanting policies based on their false prophecies of overpopulation.

Let the new, bipartisan socialists gobble up all of that debt as quickly as possible. After they finish making their mess and beating each other up, we men will rebuild.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I don’t think FDR would. The man was an out and out socialist and was never exposed as he should have been, and would have been today.

But I agree with you regarding the sad state of affairs in the Republican Party. Though there are those here who would tell you that their goal isn’t necessarily to defeat Baraq. Not sure I buy into that, but I am quite sure that they don’t feel any special need to cater to their base through nominating arguably the worst candidate the party has ever fielded.

[W. W. SMITH]

If Romney adheres to the party platform we will be touting him as better than Reagan. LOL Pigs would be flying.

With the coming election we have two realistic choices. the slow socialist, Romney being a Fabian socialist is willing to wait decades if necessary to bring us to his desired utopia. Then we have the fast socialist, Obama being a revolutionary Marxist communist wants his utopia next week and if you oppose that his solution is the two billion plus rounds of ammo he just purchased and is eager to use. So who are you going to vote for? personally I’m going for the slow socialist hoping that we will have enough time to get handcuffs on socialist thinking and chop off the monsters head.

[W. W. SMITH]

Hubert Humphrey would probably be a Fred Thompson/Newt Gingrich type Republican today.

NO!!!! I met HH in 1967 he was dumb as a box of rocks and at the same time could speak for an hour without saying more than “my name is Hubert Horatio Humphrey” and “thank you” no context in an hour of words spewing from his mouth.

He would be a rino, he was Fabian through and through.

[Terry Mross]

A guy I knew would get pissed when I said obama is a socialist. I showed him the cover of, I think it was time, that had a picture of obama and the cpation said “We’re all socialists now.” His reponse was “Well, they’re wrong.”

[norwaypinesavage]

"RomneyCare and ObamaCare are both advances in socialism. It's pure and simple. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

Before you accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty", look up socialism in the dictionary. Then give me even one example of socialism by the state of Massachusetts in RomneyCare.

I will accept an argument of "statism" in RomneyCare, but not "socialism". In contrast, you will find numerous examples of socialism in Obamacare. Its fundamental intention is "single payer" medical care i.e. socialized medicine.

Your promiscuous use of the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" reflects negatively on your own intellectual honesty.

[so_real]

I've listened to numerous arguments with respect to "statism" vs "socialism". The distinction appears to lie in what people consider "in the community" and "in the state" (ie, can the state be considered a community and vice versa). And in the distinction between "ownership and control" as apposed to simply "control" (ie, do you really "own" something if you do not control it). If you want to join the group of those trying to make a chasm out of a fine line in order to show the RomneyCare is good and ObamaCare is bad, or that Obama is a socialist but Romney is not, feel free. I find the argument tenuous at best and intellectually dishonest, whether you find my use of that phrase "promiscuous" or not. Bottom line : does the policy legislated mandate that you lose control of capital you own which is then redistributed to another and spent "for the good of" the community/state as whole despite your personal objections to its intended purpose? Yes? Socialism.

[norwaypinesavage]

You live in a country where federal law requires hospitals to give free treatment to individuals who can't afford it. That law went into effect while Reagan was president. I suppose that makes him a "socialist" too, under your definition. States can choose to deal with that law in different ways. Massachusetts chose to deal with it by mandating private insurance for those who "could afford" it. Other states simply charge more for the rest of the health care users. If you want to call Massachusetts socialist for doing that, don't let me stop you.

I certainly question your intelligence, though, if you call it "intellectually dishonest" when others chose to define it with more commonly accepted terms.