PDA

View Full Version : Socialist Nominee Brian Moore on Cavuto Now! 4:40 p.m.!




Knightskye
10-14-2008, 02:29 PM
Hahahaha.

Why'd they have him on?

ihsv
10-14-2008, 02:40 PM
Hahahaha.

Why'd they have him on?

The Socialist nominee? Which one? McCain or Obama? :D

(I know you're talking about the "Socialist Party", but I couldn't resist)

Knightskye
10-14-2008, 02:46 PM
The Socialist nominee? Which one? McCain or Obama? :D

(I know you're talking about the "Socialist Party", but I couldn't resist)

Yeah, they all seem a bit Socialist. :)

powerofreason
10-14-2008, 02:57 PM
Probably just babbled out some anti-capitalist slogans and nonsense about regulation. That about right?

Knightskye
10-14-2008, 03:15 PM
Probably just babbled out some anti-capitalist slogans and nonsense about regulation. That about right?

Basically that if we're going for partial-socialism, we might as well socialize the whole thing.

FOX probably just had him on to entertain their audience.

powerofreason
10-14-2008, 03:20 PM
FOX probably just had him on to entertain their audience.

lol

libertythor
10-14-2008, 03:23 PM
FOX probably just had him on to entertain their audience.

True. However I respect Brian Moore because he is actually honest about his intentions.....not that I would ever vote for him.

Texan4Life
10-14-2008, 03:33 PM
they probably had him on to be like "see I told you Mcbama isn't socialist, check out this nut job."

Mortikhi
10-14-2008, 03:46 PM
Hahahaha.

Why'd they have him on?
Because that's what we are now.

itshappening
10-14-2008, 03:57 PM
it's no bad thing... FOX can say look we're balanced... these small candidates are entitled to the odd interview...

Knightskye
10-15-2008, 02:03 AM
it's no bad thing... FOX can say look we're balanced... these small candidates are entitled to the odd interview...

I'd love to see Nader on O'Reilly's show. Hah.

Forefall
10-15-2008, 03:15 AM
Who are we to say what the right way of thinking is? Honestly... you guys are sounding like the people that talk shit about Ron Paul.

Even if you disagree with his policies, sort of like Kucinich, you should at least recognize that he's 100x the man that McCain or Obama will ever be. He's at least honest and tells you what his actual plans are instead of spouting rhetoric.

Voting for him or not, I respect him. I just don't agree with his idea of how the country should be run.

I remember why I don't visit this forum as often now...

chrisc888
10-15-2008, 03:48 AM
Who are we to say what the right way of thinking is? Honestly... you guys are sounding like the people that talk shit about Ron Paul.

Even if you disagree with his policies, sort of like Kucinich, you should at least recognize that he's 100x the man that McCain or Obama will ever be. He's at least honest and tells you what his actual plans are instead of spouting rhetoric.

Voting for him or not, I respect him. I just don't agree with his idea of how the country should be run.

I remember why I don't visit this forum as often now...

QFT!
I feel the same way about Nader.

Conza88
10-15-2008, 04:41 AM
Who are we to say what the right way of thinking is? Honestly... you guys are sounding like the people that talk shit about Ron Paul.

Even if you disagree with his policies, sort of like Kucinich, you should at least recognize that he's 100x the man that McCain or Obama will ever be. He's at least honest and tells you what his actual plans are instead of spouting rhetoric.

Voting for him or not, I respect him. I just don't agree with his idea of how the country should be run.

I remember why I don't visit this forum as often now...

Umm... obviously if I had no choice I'd prefer an honest socialist, to a dishonest one.

Respect them? aaaaahhhhhhhhh, noooo....... I don't respect theft, coercion and immorality... sorry... I guess that's just me? :rolleyes:

I tend to have principles.. but yeah, if he's a voluntary socialist, all is forgiven. :D

Forefall
10-15-2008, 05:06 AM
Umm... obviously if I had no choice I'd prefer an honest socialist, to a dishonest one.

Respect them? aaaaahhhhhhhhh, noooo....... I don't respect theft, coercion and immorality... sorry... I guess that's just me? :rolleyes:

I tend to have principles.. but yeah, if he's a voluntary socialist, all is forgiven. :D

The redistribution of wealth amongst the people doesn't cause me to shriek in horror or be extremely offended. It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people... Immorality? Oh please. Not even touching that one.

I see the good and bad in every political system. There are many good things that would come out of being a part of a socialist country. There are equally as many negatives. It's preference.

Yes, the U.S. was founded on the Constitution. In 1776. Things are changing. 1% of the world's population owns 99% of the world's population (not accurate I think, and don't quote me on it, but it's close!). Obviously, there are some that earned that money fairly, but a lot of it was just inherited wealth or money earned via corruption. There absolutely is a good case to move towards socialism.

Is it what I'm choosing? Definitely not. I do not think that system best suits a country of our size... perhaps a smaller country, but not the USA. But if my country, via democracy, moves towards such a change, I'm not going to bury myself in a bunker in Montana with a bible, M-16s and MRE's. That's just lunacy.

literatim
10-15-2008, 05:51 AM
The redistribution of wealth amongst the people doesn't cause me to shriek in horror or be extremely offended. It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people... Immorality? Oh please. Not even touching that one.

So it is okay to rob someone if a majority decide that person should be robbed? So it would be okay if you visited someone's house and the people around you took a vote to take the money you have in your wallet and redistribute it to everyone else in the house? Naturally, if you didn't want to pay, they would beat the crap out of you and take it from you anyway.


Yes, the U.S. was founded on the Constitution. In 1776. Things are changing. 1% of the world's population owns 99% of the world's population (not accurate I think, and don't quote me on it, but it's close!). Obviously, there are some that earned that money fairly, but a lot of it was just inherited wealth or money earned via corruption. There absolutely is a good case to move towards socialism.

What is wrong with inheritance?

Conza88
10-15-2008, 06:24 AM
What is wrong with inheritance?

All well said.. Literatim. :)

To answer your question posed to Forefall...

Because it's the 3rd plank of the Communist Manifesto;

"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance." (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)

That's why he doesn't like it...... ;)

powerofreason
10-15-2008, 08:59 AM
The redistribution of wealth amongst the people doesn't cause me to shriek in horror or be extremely offended. It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people... Immorality? Oh please. Not even touching that one.


Whats up with the Marxist infiltrators lately? First that teenforpaul dude, now this guy. Socialism is not only impractical its extremely immoral.

Knightskye
10-16-2008, 03:04 AM
It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people...

But it would be dinnertime if three wolves and a sheep decided on what to eat.

BagOfEyebrows
10-16-2008, 05:03 AM
It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people...

It's still theft - even if one person doesn't vote for it and the rest do.

But all this discussion and disagreement is about is what the role of government is supposed to be, and what is the role of the people themselves is supposed to be.

I agree with socialistic type thinking in terms of not avoiding our connection to each other and our duty/responsiblity for good will towards mankind/looking out for each other... I also understand the logic behind pooling resources together to achieve much more, more efficiently... but community/social efforts are supposed to be a very human thing, you can't put that into the duties of a non-human entity such as government.

The government can't take responsibility for our humanitarianism, as it then becomes governmentarism, the 'human' aspect stripped right from it, via force, mandates, laws, all of which break the basic princples and infringe upon individual rights. Never mind the corruption - even if it worked, it would be equivalent to teaching a child not to steal because 'you might get caught' compared to teaching a child not to steal because 'it is wrong.' It's the difference between helping out an elderly neighbor with something because you see them struggling and you care, or being told you have to go help them or you will be punished for a week, fined a hundred dollars for every minute you don't help them, and punched in the nose even after you help them simply because you hesitated.

If a group of socialist minded folks took the element of doing things by government/force out of it, and just instead formed private, social groups where they pooled their money together to achieve the things they wanted to, without dragging in 'everyone' (as it conflicts with many, many religious ideologies, especially in terms of charitable giving, in any form, and how that has to remain as a connection between people and not brokered through government/force), they long ago could have formed a little society where they could have done the many things they wanted to do without waiting for government to force it upon every single humanbeing alive.

But that's the problem with socialism... it's all or nothing. And it's all by force of government. And they call Libertarians unrealistic and full of 'utopian' pie-in-the-sky ideologies?

If they wanted it only for themselves, to lead by example, that would be fine - but that isn't what they want.

What they want is 'everyone' to do it. But for some, the conflict with their creator, and/or their personal philosophy about human connections and responsiblities, and/or the role of government and the role we have with each other, makes it impossible to comply with... socialists do not understand this, yet.

But I think one day they will.

Knightskye
10-17-2008, 01:31 AM
Bump for discussion.

blocks
10-17-2008, 03:24 AM
The redistribution of wealth amongst the people doesn't cause me to shriek in horror or be extremely offended. It's also not THEFT if the system is voted in by the majority of the people...

....

That's equivalent to saying "It's not racism if 51% of voters are Klansmen."

Knightskye
10-17-2008, 08:42 AM
....

That's equivalent to saying "It's not racism if 51% of voters are Klansmen."

Bingo.