Turn on thread page Beta

Rand Paul wins republican primary watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    Rand Paul is anti gay rights, anti abortion and anti immigration. He is also a religious nutjob.

    A blathering reactionary. Oh how low the Libertarian will stoop to find a victory.
    There is no such thing in the US as "anti-immigration", only anti-illegal immigration. No one has a problem if the immigrants follow the process and come here legally. There is not a single politician that I am aware of in either party that opposes legal immigration.

    Can you find me a link to a youtube or something that shows him saying he is against gay rights? Not that I don't believe you, I just haven't found anything that suggests this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope Republicans are never back in office.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    There is no such thing in the US as "anti-immigration", only anti-illegal immigration. No one has a problem if the immigrants follow the process and come here legally. There is not a single politician that I am aware of in either party that opposes legal immigration.
    :rolleyes: Just keep telling yourself that. :laugh:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    :rolleyes: Just keep telling yourself that. :laugh:
    Find me a US politician from either party who has gone on the record opposing LEGAL immigration.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BuffettIsRight)
    I hope Republicans are never back in office.
    Democrats have been in power since 2006 and you've got until November to sit back enjoy their wonderful leadership. After November, they are going to all get thrown out on their asses. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Democrats have been in power since 2006 and you've got until November to sit back enjoy their wonderful leadership. After November, they are going to all get thrown out on their asses. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.
    Oh of course it will be so much better when you have senators who believe that private businesses should be allowed to put up signs saying 'no blacks welcome'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Oh of course it will be so much better when you have senators who believe that private businesses should be allowed to put up signs saying 'no blacks welcome'.
    First of all, Rand Paul is a libertarian who is running as a republican. Like his dad, his libertarian views hardly reflect the mainstream GOP ideology.

    He said he would have voted for the civil rights act, so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about, he just raised a constitutional question. The federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to encroach on law abiding private businesses, or their RIGHT to serve who they choose to, or not to serve. He's actually right, but he should have not raised the issue because he gave ammunition to the left.

    He's actually correct, but it was a stupid point to make because once the race card is played against you, it's a very hard thing to shake. This nonsense is going to stay with him for quite some time. Democrats who are former klansmen get a free pass, but republicans are held to higher standards.

    If anything the interview with Rachel Maddow shows more than anything else the flaws in libertarian ideology. It's just too hard to defend libertarian views against a very intelligent debator (even though I disagree with her on just about everything, I concede she is a bright person) who can play on people's fears and emotions to argue their points.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)

    If anything the interview with Rachel Maddow shows more than anything else the flaws in libertarian ideology. It's just too hard to defend libertarian views against a very intelligent debator (even though I disagree with her on just about everything, I concede she is a bright person) who can play on people's fears and emotions to argue their points.
    I think if he was more articulate then he could have defended it easily.

    As you say, it is just hard to defend without the media portraying you as a racist and when people have false notions of private business.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Oh of course it will be so much better when you have senators who believe that private businesses should be allowed to put up signs saying 'no blacks welcome'.
    Would you care to explain why having respect for private property is a bad thing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Would you care to explain why having respect for private property is a bad thing?
    Would you care to explain how that has anything to do with my point?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Although I despise the Tea Party people I actually agree with a considerable amount of their views.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I think if he was more articulate then he could have defended it easily.

    As you say, it is just hard to defend without the media portraying you as a racist and when people have false notions of private business.
    Most of the time capitalism takes care of these problems anyway. I was buying a part for my dad's land rover defender from overseas, and the seller sent me a stupid email mocking and ridiculing americans. I told him he was an ass and I took my business elsewhere. Problem solved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Most of the time capitalism takes care of these problems anyway. I was buying a part for my dad's land rover defender from overseas, and the seller sent me a stupid email mocking and ridiculing americans. I told him he was an ass and I took my business elsewhere. Problem solved.
    Exactly. People have the false notion that Private business needs to be told by Government not to discriminate when it was Government that was actually forcing discrimination to occur.

    I don't support discrimination but I support the right to discriminate.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Exactly. People have the false notion that Private business needs to be told by Government not to discriminate when it was Government that was actually forcing discrimination to occur.

    I don't support discrimination but I support the right to discriminate.
    Just so people know what we are talking about, I'm putting the link here with Rachel Maddow's "gotcha" moment


    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Would you care to explain how that has anything to do with my point?
    You oppose the right for private property owners to decide who uses their property and when (that is, by refusing to allow them to fully exercise their discretion as to who is allowed to enter and purchase goods and services).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    You oppose the right for private property owners to decide who uses their property and when (that is, by refusing to allow them to fully exercise their discretion as to who is allowed to enter and purchase goods and services).
    Indeed I do because that is the law. If someone wants to open a business then they should be subject to the law. If they don't want to serve certain people then they shouldn't have opened the business in the first place.

    Did you not notice the grief Chris Grayling got in the UK for saying B&B owners should be able to discriminate against homosexuals. That was because it is against the law for them to do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Indeed I do because that is the law. If someone wants to open a business then they should be subject to the law. If they don't want to serve certain people then they shouldn't have opened the business in the first place.

    Did you not notice the grief Chris Grayling got in the UK for saying B&B owners should be able to discriminate against homosexuals. That was because it is against the law for them to do so.
    And if it wasn't the law, would you support the rights of business to discriminate? Do you believe it is morally right that the government interferes with private business in the manner described?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    And if it wasn't the law, would you support the rights of business to discriminate? Do you believe it is morally right that the government interferes with private business in the manner described?
    Would I support the rights of business to discriminate? Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? My idea of morality does not involve businesses being able to enforce de facto segregation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Would I support the rights of business to discriminate? Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? My idea of morality does not involve businesses being able to enforce de facto segregation.
    What I'm trying to get at is, if you believe in the right to absolute private property then by extension you must accept their right to decide who uses their property. Phrased another way - is the right to private property one granted by the state (in other words, does the state have a moral right to dictate how individuals use it)?

    Of course, the legality aside it's generally considered bad business to exclude potential customers from your establishment. The idea that simply allowing business to discriminate would result in polar discrimination between black people and white people is based more in fiction than fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    What I'm trying to get at is, if you believe in the right to absolute private property then by extension you must accept their right to decide who uses their property. Phrased another way - is the right to private property one granted by the state (in other words, does the state have a moral right to dictate how individuals use it)?

    Of course, the legality aside it's generally considered bad business to exclude potential customers from your establishment. The idea that simply allowing business to discriminate would result in polar discrimination between black people and white people is based more in fiction than fact.
    Why must I accept that their right to decide? The current system seems to work fine, I don't see the big controversy. I can't see how allowing people to discriminate is a good thing.

    Well the idea is actually far from fiction, it went on in the US for decades. However, I am not saying this will happen now. I just don't see how it has any benefits. Moreover, where would you draw the line?

    Also I don't understand why you keep using the word moral, especially when talking about business and politics. The government has the right to protect its citizens from discrimination.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.