Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Arkolon]

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

No it isn't. The First Amendment does not, in any way, grant a "right" to discriminate. Nor does the owner of a public accommodation have the "right" to discriminate. If you do business with the public, you have an obligation to do business with all of the public, not just the ones with a skin tone or ideology you like.

There is no right to discriminate. There is the liberty to discriminate, because superimposing positivist law would be a diminishing of other rights. Property is an extension of the self either acquired by labour, which is an abstract concept that is a hylomorphic extension of the self that permits physical action, or it is either acquired through just transfer. Since property is an extension of the self, what one does with that property is one's own concerns and one's own choice. There is no right to discriminate, but removing that liberty would be a diminishing of the rights related to property and the very concept of self-ownership.

[The New Sea Territory]

There is no such thing as a conservative libertarian. That's basically saying a Soviet Anarchist. Nonexistent. They are mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

Does mean Rand Paul can beat her.

...That made no sense..

A scandal that came straight from O'Reilly's anus.

That's a red herring and an appeal to ridicule. Benghazi was a real event that happened and questions were not answered properly. 4 Americans died, families were hurt, it was a big deal and she failed at handiling it properly.

Which neocons should love her for.

What?

Tell me more about how a statist supports liberty?

Can you give me an example of Rand Paul taking up statist views, vouching for statist things, introducing statist bills, etc?

Thank you, Levin. Now stop spewing conservative talking points on us. It's gross and bad for the environment, think of the children.

So far you've debunked nothing I've said and you're simply spewing a bunch of logical fallacies for no reason.

Hopefully you guys do run Jeb Bush so you prove that no one should ever vote for you again and then the Republican party ceases to exist. Sadly, that won't be the case, as people are to ignorant to realize they are blindly following the Christian Taliban.

So far you:

Have not debunked a single one of my points.

Have made multiple attempts at ridicule.

Please, contribute to the discussion..

Libertarian Conservatism is a oxymoron. A Libertarian is by definition a socially liberal person. Conservatism is not socially liberal.

They caught one of the fucking guys who planned it. What more do you want them to do? The whole scandal has been manufactured by Fox News, just like Fast and Furious and a bunch of others.

...

Is Rand Paul an anarchist? No. Then, by definition, he is a statist. That's the definition. He supports the existence of the state.

I have contributed to the conversation, you just claimed to be the Resident Walking Contradiction of NSG.

[Murkwood]

When I said broad appeal, I was referring to two particular groups. But it doesn't matter whether it means nothing in relation to the election, because I was just demonstrating that right now he has a decent shot at winning, compared to other Republicans.

Please point me to a poll that ever said that Ron Paul had a 40% approval rating.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Oh that's from the same site you gave us by the way. I'm sure you knew about how horribly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.

Oh my God, that'd be the worst election ever. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul, and I'd never vote for Obama.

[Kelinfort]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Oh that's from the same site you gave us by the way. I'm sure you knew about how horribly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.

Oh my God, that'd be the worst election ever. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul, and I'd never vote for Obama.

You're overreacting. The election of 1856 was way worse.

[Arkolon]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1750.html

Oh that's from the same site you gave us by the way. I'm sure you knew about how horribly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.

Oh my God, that'd be the worst election ever. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul, and I'd never vote for Obama.

Constitution Party?

[Murkwood]

Oh my God, that'd be the worst election ever. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul, and I'd never vote for Obama.

Constitution Party?

I guess I'd have to.

[Kelinfort]

Oh my God, that'd be the worst election ever. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Paul, and I'd never vote for Obama.

Constitution Party?

And you call yourself a minarchist.

[Arkolon]

Constitution Party?

And you call yourself a minarchist.

Oh, no, I'd never vote Constitution. I never want to vote either. I was giving Murkwood a suggestion.

[Death Metal]

Constitution Party?

I guess I'd have to.

So, you'll not vote for dominionist Rand Paul but you'd vote for the dominionists in the dominionist party?

[Farnhamia]

I guess I'd have to.

So, you'll not vote for dominionist Rand Paul but you'd vote for the dominionists in the dominionist party?

I think he meant the dominionist Ron Paul ...

[Death Metal]

So, you'll not vote for dominionist Rand Paul but you'd vote for the dominionists in the dominionist party?

I think he meant the dominionist Ron Paul ...

Meh, six of one.

[Freiheit Reich]

Yay! How can We resist the offer of the freedom to be discriminated against?!?

You big silly. The free market would correct that.

Racism bad so people stop going to store so store goes out of business. See the free market will solve everything!

Rand Paul is right about this.

For example, the media would blast a store that refused to sell to blacks. The store might attract a few openly racist customers but there would be protests and even hidden racists wouldn't go because they wouldn't want friends to think they are racist by supporting the store. Most people would boycott the store and it would suffer and might even go bankrupt.

Most store owners, even racist ones, will not turn down money. A few will discriminate (such as the Colorado bakery that didn't not to bake a cake for a gay wedding) but most will not.

Why keep the rules when it might affect 1% of businesses.

Same for hiring: most managers will try to hire the best employees. An educated, well dressed/groomed black man with a normal name with proper English speaking ability and better qualifications than the other applicants will get the job with most firms.

Yes-the name matters regardless of race. Names such as Latoyah or Lakeesha, or Jamal make people think of negative black stereotypes. The parents were rebellious against mainstream society and this is a reason they chose such a name and the employer will assume the child is also rebellious against mainstream society. Also, gangster rap videos have created unfair stereotypes against blacks.

In fairness: A white person with a hippie name like Apple or Rainbow will probably get his application tossed out for the same reason. Parents need to give their children traditional names.

A few employers will refuse to hire certain races but their competitors will happily hire the best qualified applicants and in the long run, the competitors will come out ahead. The free market will solve the issue. I will admit, blacks have a slight disadvantage due to bad stereotypes given to them because of gangster rap videos and movies like 'Boyz in the Hood' though but it can be overcome (the proof is the many blacks that have been very successful).

[Freiheit Reich]

You big silly. The free market would correct that.

Just like it did in the 60s.

Things are different now. People are much more open to diversity these days. Most people will judge a person by their character once they sit down and talk to him/her. Very few will openly discriminate against people these days.

[Freiheit Reich]

No. I hope that Hillary wins.
Because all the republican presidents are far to warlike.
Give me a moderate Democratic president.

Bush was a very bad president,
thanks to him, ISIS exists,
if Bush didn't kill Sadam Hussain, then ISIS wasn't so powerfull as now.
And Iraq would be modern, and not so instable as it now is.

The only problem that I have with Obama: He had to clean up the mess Bush, he couldn't make his promises because of Bush.

Long live the Democrats.

You're telling me Hillary Clinton doesn't like war?

Plus he is still blaming Bush several years later. I suppose President Hillary can always do the same thing if she wins forgetting that Obama had 8 years to fix things.

[Myrensis]

You big silly. The free market would correct that.

Racism bad so people stop going to store so store goes out of business. See the free market will solve everything!

Rand Paul is right about this.

For example, the media would blast a store that refused to sell to blacks. The store might attract a few openly racist customers but there would be protests and even hidden racists wouldn't go because they wouldn't want friends to think they are racist by supporting the store. Most people would boycott the store and it would suffer and might even go bankrupt.

Most store owners, even racist ones, will not turn down money. A few will discriminate (such as the Colorado bakery that didn't not to bake a cake for a gay wedding) but most will not.

Why keep the rules when it might affect 1% of businesses.

Same for hiring: most managers will try to hire the best employees. An educated, well dressed/groomed black man with a normal name with proper English speaking ability and better qualifications than the other applicants will get the job with most firms.

Yes-the name matters regardless of race. Names such as Latoyah or Lakeesha, or Jamal make people think of negative black stereotypes. The parents were rebellious against mainstream society and this is a reason they chose such a name and the employer will assume the child is also rebellious against mainstream society. Also, gangster rap videos have created unfair stereotypes against blacks.

In fairness: A white person with a hippie name like Apple or Rainbow will probably get his application tossed out for the same reason. Parents need to give their children traditional names.

A few employers will refuse to hire certain races but their competitors will happily hire the best qualified applicants and in the long run, the competitors will come out ahead. The free market will solve the issue. I will admit, blacks have a slight disadvantage due to bad stereotypes given to them because of gangster rap videos and movies like 'Boyz in the Hood' though but it can be overcome (the proof is the many blacks that have been very successful).

A very well thought out post, it's really a shame that....all of history completely disagrees with it. Businesses will put 'moral' or 'social' issues ahead of profit because businesses are run by people. Employers will consider things having nothing to do with qualifications/experience/work history because employers are people. The reason these things aren't quite as common and blatant these days is because of laws that Rand Paul, his daddy, and assorted other "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" constantly rail against because they're totally the one thing standing in the way of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market Fairy leading us all to Utopia.

Free Market fanatics really have about as much evidence going for them as Communists, always being left to cry "No, no, the only reason it failed miserably is because they weren't doing it right!".

[Lavan Tiri]

The real question is, what will he beat her with?

[Freiheit Reich]

Everyone on Fox is pissed he left Iraq "too early."

Then clearly Fox, as we already know, is full of hypocrites. Obama followed the withdrawal date set by Bush to the letter. Obama had basically nothing to do with withdrawing from Iraq; he actually wanted to keep US troops there longer, until the Iraqi government threatened to try American war criminals.

Obama should have pulled out the troops in 6 months and told Americans that Bush made a mistake and that it is time to respect national sovereignty and let Iraq solve their own problems. Not our country, not our problem, if they kill each other that is their business. They feel at peace when they are at war. I would have respected Obama if he had the guts to admit the USA screwed up and that the smart thing to do is to leave ASAP. The fact he wanted to stay longer was a serious concern and showed lack of judgment. People forget that Obama wanted to stay longer despite criticizing Bush for invading Iraq, thankfully the Iraq govt. didn't fully cooperate with Obama's requests or we might still be there.

If Rand Paul is like his father, he won't push the USA into unjust foreign wars. He will not attack nations unless they attack us first. Ron Paul said fighting Japan in WW2 was justified since we were attacked first (Pearl Harbor). He said the other wars were not justified since we were not attacked by these other countries (ex. Iraq). I just hope Rand Paul doesn't try to please war hawk republicans and get the USA involved in foreign problems.

Rand Paul and the Iraq War:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil ... r_in_Iraq/

"Dr Paul has stated that he would have voted against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq."

[Freiheit Reich]

Yay freedom of discrimination! Ain't it a wonderful thing?

Discrimination sucks, it really does. I once came out of a gay bar late at night with some friends and when we walked up to a taxi the driver refused to take us anywhere after seeing where we'd come from, so I had to walk home in the rain. Anecdotes aside, it is against both the First Amendment and against the individual's right as a property owner to prevent them from choosing who can trade with them.

The taxi driver lost a fare while you got some exercise and saved a lot of money. You were the winner in that situation.

[Freiheit Reich]

C'mon, let's be serious here - what outwardly racist business is successful? I can't think of one. Maybe the Civil Rights Act did help extinguish private sector discrimination, maybe it didn't. I'd have to see the data first. But I really don't think repealing Title II, which is more a matter of principle above all else, would have much of an effect at all on equal access to the market.

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

A competitor could open up 'Rainbow Chicken Shack' and openly encourage gays to come to their shop as a way to take advantage of Chick-fil-a's anti-gay stance. Besides, are gays really hurt? There are plenty of other fast food joints they can visit and actually they will be healthier if they avoid the restaurant instead. Also, the restaurant will still serve gays even if they declare they disapprove of the gay lifestyle. All customer's money is still acceptable (as it will be for most businesses).

[Othelos]

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

A competitor could open up 'Rainbow Chicken Shack' and openly encourage gays to come to their shop as a way to take advantage of Chick-fil-a's anti-gay stance. Besides, are gays really hurt? There are plenty of other fast food joints they can visit and actually they will be healthier if they avoid the restaurant instead. Also, the restaurant will still serve gays even if they declare they disapprove of the gay lifestyle. All customer's money is still acceptable (as it will be for most businesses).

The owners only announced their position to drum up business.

I couldn't care less if they don't like gay people, personally.

[Freiheit Reich]

she is female so looks don't matter in getting the female vote

Again, most women don't vote based off of "Oh lookie, we both have a vagina".

Are you sure? I think many women will feel that Hillary will better understand the needs of women versus a male. Hillary is also a mother so most mothers will feel she can relate to them and will care more about family issues.

Do you think Oprah would attract as many female viewers if she was a man?

[Lavan Tiri]

Again, most women don't vote based off of "Oh lookie, we both have a vagina".

Are you sure? I think many women will feel that Hillary will better understand the needs of women versus a male. Hillary is also a mother so most mothers will feel she can relate to them and will care more about family issues.

Do you think Oprah would attract as many female viewers if she was a man?

She's Oprah. If she was Opran she'd still have the same viewers.

[Kelinfort]

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

A competitor could open up 'Rainbow Chicken Shack' and openly encourage gays to come to their shop as a way to take advantage of Chick-fil-a's anti-gay stance. Besides, are gays really hurt? There are plenty of other fast food joints they can visit and actually they will be healthier if they avoid the restaurant instead. Also, the restaurant will still serve gays even if they declare they disapprove of the gay lifestyle. All customer's money is still acceptable (as it will be for most businesses).

I know this is an anecdote, but my Uncle, currently in the air force and stationed in Germany, used to live in Alabama when the whole "Chick-fil-a" anti-gay marriage thing blew up. There were way more people going to have lunch than protestors. I can feel the free market working!

[The Black Forrest]

The real question is, what will he beat her with?

[The Black Forrest]

Not racist, but Chick-fil-A was openly homophobic. It's President/COO Dan Cathy has made many public comments opposing LGBT rights. Also, Chick-fil-A has donated through their charitable foundation to many anti-LGBT rights groups. Chik-Fil-A's sales soared even as these things occurred. Laws are necessary to ensure all people have protection from discrimination, and that there is no social exclusion of LGBT people, etc.

A competitor could open up 'Rainbow Chicken Shack' and openly encourage gays to come to their shop as a way to take advantage of Chick-fil-a's anti-gay stance. Besides, are gays really hurt? There are plenty of other fast food joints they can visit and actually they will be healthier if they avoid the restaurant instead. Also, the restaurant will still serve gays even if they declare they disapprove of the gay lifestyle. All customer's money is still acceptable (as it will be for most businesses).