Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Arkolon]

You do realise every other point made on that article agrees with Lerodan?

Except for the result.

They stopped donating to anti-LGBT movements. What are you trying to say?

[Murkwood]

The real reason was to stop the spread of terror, topple a horrific tyrant and a terrorist group posing as a government, and find WMDs most intelligence agencies said existed.

I don't really get your second point. NeoCons are pro-market.

The US didn't go there just to kill brown people, but to safeguard the black stuff they were sitting on.

Would neocons free up trade union restrictions? Would neocons cease to give subsidies to businesses? Do neocons support union-stomping?

I thought you'd be better that the "Iraq was for oil" lie.

To your other point, it varies.

[Kelinfort]

Except for the result.

They stopped donating to anti-LGBT movements. What are you trying to say?

Yet, they generated far more support amongst their audience. The move may have stopped the donations, but the outcry against the organisation was far quieter than the public support.

[Arkolon]

The US didn't go there just to kill brown people, but to safeguard the black stuff they were sitting on.

Would neocons free up trade union restrictions? Would neocons cease to give subsidies to businesses? Do neocons support union-stomping?

I thought you'd be better that the "Iraq was for oil" lie.

To your other point, it varies.

I was born after the Gulf War, so I can only give what I was told about it. I'm very sure there was a lot of petrol involved.

If it varies, then neocons aren't decidedly pro-market.

[Arkolon]

They stopped donating to anti-LGBT movements. What are you trying to say?

Yet, they generated far more support amongst their audience. The move may have stopped the donations, but the outcry against the organisation was far quieter than the public support.

Then where is the problem, apart from you having a personal issue with their practices? Aren't you a (small-d) democrat?

[Murkwood]

I thought you'd be better that the "Iraq was for oil" lie.

To your other point, it varies.

I was born after the Gulf War, so I can only give what I was told about it. I'm very sure there was a lot of petrol involved.

If it varies, then neocons aren't decidedly pro-market.

A large majority are.

[Arkolon]

I was born after the Gulf War, so I can only give what I was told about it. I'm very sure there was a lot of petrol involved.

If it varies, then neocons aren't decidedly pro-market.

A large majority are.

Was I wrong about Desert Shield?

[Kelinfort]

Yet, they generated far more support amongst their audience. The move may have stopped the donations, but the outcry against the organisation was far quieter than the public support.

Then where is the problem, apart from you having a personal issue with their practices? Aren't you a (small-d) democrat?

Without anti-discrimination legislation, it's unlikely businesses with actual prejudices and a large supportive audience would be forced to change discriminatory business practices.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Rand Paul is not a dominionist. He's far more socially liberal than any other Republican candidate. "State's rights" has historically been used as an excuse to restrict people's freedoms, and is anti-constitutional as far as ignoring the rest of the Constitution. But states' powers is still a very important function of the US political system, and big state government is vastly preferable to big federal government because it means that tyranny is usually localised and confined to a much smaller area of land.

Hmmm.

So fifty tyrants are better then one?

Wait need to break that down to local level so how many tyrants are that?

You're assuming that every state government would go postal, but realistically this is not true. It all depends on the social and political attitudes of the different states. Sure, Mississippi might criminalise sodomy, but you'd also see New Hampshire banning government surveillance, or Vermont nationalising its healthcare industry. So you wouldn't see fifty tyrants. But if you would, then it would still be better than one tyrant, because the one tyrant would have far more control and power over a much larger territory than a state government tyrant, who are much easier to combat and replace. A common mistake that centralists make is that they'll get the "right guy" into office once they give the national government total power. This has been shown, historically, to be very naive.

[Murkwood]

A large majority are.

Was I wrong about Desert Shield?

Desert Shield? The Gulf War one, or the Iraq war one?

[Arkolon]

Then where is the problem, apart from you having a personal issue with their practices? Aren't you a (small-d) democrat?

Without anti-discrimination legislation, it's unlikely businesses with actual prejudices and a large supportive audience would be forced to change discriminatory business practices.

Were their practices really discriminatory? Sure, some of the proceeds went to some dodgy guys, but were any LGBT people directly discriminated against when they purchased from the CfA? Is there a sign near below the counter that says "don't serve LGBT"?

[Arkolon]

Was I wrong about Desert Shield?

Desert Shield? The Gulf War one, or the Iraq war one?

1990, not 2003.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

Yeaaaaahhhh!!!! I like the myth of the self correcting free market.

Please tell me another libertarian bed time fairy tale!

What is unrealistic about any of that?

[Freiheit Reich]

Even though I dislike her, I will probably vote for Hilary Clinton.
I agree with her more than I agree with Rand Paul.

This'll be my first time voting... I'm glad, too. If I had voted last election, it might have been for a libertarian.
Education and knowledge are beautiful things. It's good that I escaped that ignorance when I did.

Yep, I can't imagine living in a nation that values civil liberties and stays out of foreign nations affairs while engaging in free trade and reducing its national debt. Scary thought!

Yes, really we need a democrat that supports invading other nations that didn't attack us, wants to make flag burning illegal, supports the Patriot Act, is pro-gun control, supported terrorists in the Kosovo War, and she is pro-three strikes sentencing. Democrats are so much better than libertarians! By the way-this is sarcasm (some NSG readers don't understand sarcasm when they see it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... d_security

[Murkwood]

Desert Shield? The Gulf War one, or the Iraq war one?

1990, not 2003.

Ah, I was confused, as there were two operations with the same name.

What about it?

[Arkolon]

1990, not 2003.

Ah, I was confused, as there were two operations with the same name.

What about it?

Was there no petrol involved?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I just can't understand why any so-called "conservative" would prioritise killing brown people abroad over actually shrinking the size of government. It's people like you who got into office on "smaller gubmint" rhetoric, but ended up being okay with ballooning the size of the state enormously just to quash the threat of "terrorism". Neoconservatives are little more than warmongering liberals.

It's not "killing brown people". It's fighting terrorism and tyrants, to make the world a better and safer place.

That's a noble goal, but it has not worked. The War on Terror never needed to occur in the first place since Bush could have nabbed Bin Laden even before 9/11 happened, and once the war got started he didn't bother to go after him. He said in 2002 that "to tell you the truth, I just don't spend that much time on him". The War on Terror is a nation-building project financed by Boeing, Halliburton and other corporations that have benefited.

Fighting tyrants also isn't a bad thing, but if there is no exit strategy or broader plan outside actually toppling the dictator, then it just ends up creating even more terrorists and dictators that utterly resent a foreign presence being there. What was the difference between Desert Storm and Operation: Enduring Freedom? We had a plan in the first one. We did not have a plan in 2003.

Plus, NeoCons do support shrinking the size of government,

No, they don't. They had six years in complete control of the federal government and many state governments and made very few notable attempts to shrink government. New defense spending to fight a war makes sense, but they didn't even bother to cut spending in other areas when they had all the power to do so, and ended up enlarging domestic spending. Medicare, Food Stamps, corporate welfare; they all grew enormously.

just not Defense.

Spending $1000 on a hammer and employing people to do nothing is not supporting a strong national defense.

[Murkwood]

Ah, I was confused, as there were two operations with the same name.

What about it?

Was there no petrol involved?

That might have played a tiny factor, but it mostly had to do with Saddam's illegal annexation of Kuwait.

[Kelinfort]

Ah, I was confused, as there were two operations with the same name.

What about it?

Was there no petrol involved?

Actually, it was basically about petrol.

[Kelinfort]

Without anti-discrimination legislation, it's unlikely businesses with actual prejudices and a large supportive audience would be forced to change discriminatory business practices.

Were their practices really discriminatory? Sure, some of the proceeds went to some dodgy guys, but were any LGBT people directly discriminated against when they purchased from the CfA? Is there a sign near below the counter that says "don't serve LGBT"?

The point is, were laws against discrimination repealed, and Chick-fil-a decided implicitly not to hire LGBT individuals, there would not be a huge outcry from their main base.

[Valica]

Even though I dislike her, I will probably vote for Hilary Clinton.
I agree with her more than I agree with Rand Paul.

This'll be my first time voting... I'm glad, too. If I had voted last election, it might have been for a libertarian.
Education and knowledge are beautiful things. It's good that I escaped that ignorance when I did.

Yep, I can't imagine living in a nation that values civil liberties and stays out of foreign nations affairs while engaging in free trade and reducing its national debt. Scary thought!

Yes, really we need a democrat that supports invading other nations that didn't attack us, wants to make flag burning illegal, supports the Patriot Act, is pro-gun control, supported terrorists in the Kosovo War, and she is pro-three strikes sentencing. Democrats are so much better than libertarians! By the way-this is sarcasm (some NSG readers don't understand sarcasm when they see it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... d_security

Free market economics as well as laissez faire economics do NOT work.
Allowing businesses to discriminate means they WILL discriminate.
Libertarian policies are a joke at best.

I'd rather keep my country alive for the next 4 to 8 years.

Do you honestly think Mrs. Clinton will invade another country?
She only supported most of the invasions to distance herself from Obama.

I'll admit that her support of the PATRIOT ACT is a major mark, but she's still better than the Pauls.

Liberalism works socially, centrism works economically. Conservatism doesn't work.
Libertarians are too conservative. They believe everything is sparkles and sunshine and the market will remove segregation and work abuses.

It didn't work in the industrial era and it won't work now.

[Murkwood]

Was there no petrol involved?

Actually, it was basically about petrol.

Yeah, forget the fact that one of the worst tyrants of the modern age annexed a whole country, illegally. THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS EVIL!

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

It works in theory, but the reality is very different.

Okay, good point. But Chick-Fil-A was not actually disallowing gays from entering their stores. Their CEO donated to some anti-gay groups, which would be the equivalent of a store owner in the 60s donating to George Wallace's Presidential campaign rather than actually disbarring blacks from entering his store. "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" was more to do with the liberal reaction to the scandal, and the 'homoscepticism' of the American public. I think if Chick-Fil-A was actually banning gays from entry, then it would be an entirely different story altogether.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You're right, profit is always the number one motive for a business owner, which is why they have to listen to public demand. A business cannot arbitrarily set prices or choose what products to sell. It needs to know what the customer wants. And as a customer, I can tell you that a chip shop with a sign on the front saying "No blacks allowed" would not exactly be popular with the market. It's all about public attitudes and reputation.

Aww, that's cute. You actually believe that's how it would work?
I feel bad for you, man. All that fairy dust and smoke can't be good for your eyes.

I appreciate the sympathy, but I assure you I'm perfectly sober.

[Kelinfort]

Actually, it was basically about petrol.

Yeah, forget the fact that one of the worst tyrants of the modern age annexed a whole country, illegally. THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS EVIL!

We totally intervened when the Kurds were shelled, right? Or maybe when Iran and Iraq went to war, right?

Oh wait we supported Saddam, never mind.