Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

[Murkwood]

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.

The intelligence community judged him as the lesser of two evils.

[Murkwood]

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.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

Why should anyone care?

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

A few shops would be racist but do you really think the majority of shops will turn down perfectly good money from minority customers? Your opinion of Americans is seriously flawed. Most Americans are not backwards KKK members that hate minorities despite what the liberal media says. Most Americans are tolerant of people from other races. Look at how popular blacks such as Oprah, Kobe Bryant (despite his adultery), Shaq, Ken Griffey Jr., Michael Jordon, Denzyl Washington, and Bill Cosby are among all races.

America is more a class based society than a race based society these days.

[Kelinfort]

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.

Well, I think it would be more likely they would make an implicit company policy to not hire individuals who have a "non traditional" sexual orientation. Such a policy wouldn't gain much media attention, and even if it did, their base would most likely be unaffected.

[Kelinfort]

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.

The intelligence community judged him as the lesser of two evils.

And in your previous post, your morality was readily apparent, saying we needed to get rid of Saddam.

It has now disappeared, now that he's the "lesser of two evils."

[Murkwood]

The intelligence community judged him as the lesser of two evils.

And in your previous post, your morality was readily apparent, saying we needed to get rid of Saddam.

It has now disappeared, now that he's the "lesser of two evils."

I don't agree with their judgement. If I had anything to say about it, I'd just let the two sides kill each other.

[California Prime]

No. Though Paul can pick up some voting elements that usually won't vote Republican, he also loses out on a certain segment of the Republican vote and he won't draw nearly as much big corporate money from certain sectors

[Libertarian California]

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.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

Neoconservatism's roots are in far-leftism. It was founded by left-wing communist Jews who needed a front against the anti-religiousness of the Soviet Union, and they saw the United States as perfect vehicle for this front.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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.

Trust me, they do. They work better than any other economic model, actually.

Allowing businesses to discriminate means they WILL discriminate. Libertarian policies are a joke at best.

That's nearly as funny as "if there was no minimum wage, everyone would be paid pennies!!!1"

Here's some news for ya: the use of force is not needed to do everything. Seeing that the vast majority of the American public is anti-racist, including teh big bad corprut bizness ownerz, that's highly unlikely.

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

Which is why you should vote for Rand Paul.

Do you honestly think Mrs. Clinton will invade another country?

Yep. She's the leader of the neoconservative left.

She only supported most of the invasions to distance herself from Obama.

Obama was not a major national figure in 2003.

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

No, she's not. She's a corporate crony, and various Wall Streeters and mainstream Republican sources have declared that they would prefer Hillary in a race against Paul. Hillary pro-corporate, pro-war and anti-civil liberties. There goes "liberalism", eh?

centrism works economically.

No, corporatism does not work, unless you believe that Nazi Germany had a good economic model.

Libertarians are too conservative. They believe everything is sparkles and sunshine and the market will remove segregation and work abuses.

Well, it has.

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

Maybe because racism was enforced by governments and public attitudes were vastly more discriminatory back then?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

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.

The intelligence community judged him as the lesser of two evils.

This, I agree with. Supporting Saddam in the 80s was not good, but it was necessary to prevent an Iranian victory.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

Why should anyone care?

Because it shows that the roots of neoconservatism are fundamentally liberal and anti-conservative. These are the same guys who called Reagan an "appeaser" that was too focused on giving "tax breaks for the rich" over bombing the Soviet Union.

[Murkwood]

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

Neoconservatism's roots are in far-leftism. It was founded by left-wing communist Jews who needed a front against the anti-religiousness of the Soviet Union, and they saw the United States as perfect vehicle for this front.

And? That has no bearing on the present day.

[Kelinfort]

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned that neoconservatism's founder was actually a Trotskyist for many years.

Neoconservatism's roots are in far-leftism. It was founded by left-wing communist Jews who needed a front against the anti-religiousness of the Soviet Union, and they saw the United States as perfect vehicle for this front.

Neoconservatism is a policy of interventionism in world affairs and closely associated with jingoism. It's not really associated with economics in the rest of the world, bough those on the protectionist right tend to be neocons.

[Murkwood]

The intelligence community judged him as the lesser of two evils.

This, I agree with. Supporting Saddam in the 80s was not good, but it was necessary to prevent an Iranian victory.

Why should anyone care?

Because it shows that the roots of neoconservatism are fundamentally liberal and anti-conservative. These are the same guys who called Reagan an "appeaser" that was too focused on giving "tax breaks for the rich" over bombing the Soviet Union.

Maybe in the 1920s, but it's different now.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Neoconservatism's roots are in far-leftism. It was founded by left-wing communist Jews who needed a front against the anti-religiousness of the Soviet Union, and they saw the United States as perfect vehicle for this front.

And? That has no bearing on the present day.

Well, it does, since Bush and his buddies in Congress pioneered a left-corporatist economic policy.

[Murkwood]

And? That has no bearing on the present day.

Well, it does, since Bush and his buddies in Congress pioneered a left-corporatist economic policy.

Bush? Left? Pack it in, NSG is over.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

This, I agree with. Supporting Saddam in the 80s was not good, but it was necessary to prevent an Iranian victory.


Because it shows that the roots of neoconservatism are fundamentally liberal and anti-conservative. These are the same guys who called Reagan an "appeaser" that was too focused on giving "tax breaks for the rich" over bombing the Soviet Union.

Maybe in the 1920s, but it's different now.

Irving Kristol was a notable figure in the 70s and 80s, and no way is it different now, unless you can somehow convince me that the Bush Presidency, Medicare Part D and the Food Stamps explosion didn't happen.

[Kelinfort]

And? That has no bearing on the present day.

Well, it does, since Bush and his buddies in Congress pioneered a left-corporatist economic policy.

He did have some policies that one would consider centrist, but the deficits were all driven by foreign conflicts and unnecessary tax cuts. Hardly leftist.

[Spoder]

[Murkwood]

Maybe in the 1920s, but it's different now.

Irving Kristol was a notable figure in the 70s and 80s, and no way is it different now, unless you can somehow convince me that the Bush Presidency, Medicare Part D and the Food Stamps explosion didn't happen.

Again, not every NeoCon is pro-market. But many are, like me, or most Republicans in Congress.

[Garwall]

I'd assume so. I mean, Rand Paul looks like a pretty strong guy. I'd say if he caught her by surprise...

Oh, you mean in the Presidential election. Whoops.

[Arkolon]

Was there no petrol involved?

Actually, it was basically about petrol.

That's what I thought.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Well, it does, since Bush and his buddies in Congress pioneered a left-corporatist economic policy.

Bush? Left? Pack it in, NSG is over.

Left-corporatist. I appreciate that he had somewhat of a neo-liberal agenda; after all, pro-market healthcare reform and the partial privatisation of Social Security were major planks of his second term agenda. But looking at the results of his policies, it's pretty clear that they were virtually the same as that of a Democratic President. Corporate handouts? Check. Deliberate expansions of the welfare state? Check. Explosion in government spending and regulation across-the-board? Double check. Resurgence of Keynesian economics following a wave of bailouts and nationalisations in the banking system? Yeah, Bush wasn't a free-marketeer. That's for damn sure.

[Arkolon]

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.

And why was it important that the US kept a Saddam-free Kuwait?

[Kelinfort]

(Image)

No understanding of modern economics? Check.