Rand Paul wins KY Senate primary

[dainthomas]

Really. Betting on individual races anyway... come on. They should bet whether or not the dems lose the house or senate since that is really all that matters. The president's party almost always loses seats, everyone knows this. Are they going to lose enough seats for the GOP to "take back the country" or not?

Rofl, like they "took back" the country in '94. Took them about a week to turn into the thing they hated.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Happy days oh happy day oh taking the country back are we! We The People will put this country back on track and we WILL take our country back.

The fine citizens of Kentucky have rejected a RINO in Trey Greyson and will send a libertarian-lite to the senate election. Current polls have Rand winning handily against whatever dem candidate wins. Against all the attacks of "Rand's crazy ideas" he still won.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005332-503544.html

Lil'Paul got less votes then the Dem did in the primaries. So what are you so happy about?

 

[nick1985]

I'll hang on to mine. I trust myself.

Besides it's sitting in an interest bearing account and I don't want to cheat myself out of that $.02

I figured you would be opposed to it, I wont be suprised when you welch on the bet either.

 

[nick1985]

Lil'Paul got less votes then the Dem did in the primaries. So what are you so happy about?

Have you seen the polls that came out today? Paul is ahead 25 points over the Democrat. He is probably happy about that

 

[MotF Bane]

After having observed Mr. Rand on the various interview shows yesterday, his campaign manager would do him a great service by telling him to STFU between now and the election. This guy lives in a version of 1800 that never existed. Rachel Maddow, among others, absolutely outed him for his extremist views, much as he tried to evade and reconstruct the questions.

The libertarians are going to have a great speaking platform between now and November but I'm predicting a landslide against him, even if the other candidate is a potted plant.

Maddow outing someone else for extremist views? Pot, kettle.

 

[PJABBER]

Rachel Maddow, among others, absolutely outed him for his extremist views...

Maddow. LOL!

Then again, if someone would out someone else for something, it would be she. :whiste:

 

[nick1985]

Maddow. LOL!

Then again, if someone would out someone else for something, it would be she. :whiste:

Its like Hitler 'outing' Stalin.

 

[Red Dawn]

So Paul believes that owners of a private business should be allowed to discriminate based on race? Wow.

 

[MotF Bane]

I figured you would be opposed to it, I wont be suprised when you welch on the bet either.

There's nothing to indicate he's going to back out... :\

 

[nick1985]

There's nothing to indicate he's going to back out... :\

Not allowing a neutral 3rd party to hold the funds is suspicious in my book.

 

[Red Dawn]

Not allowing a neutral 3rd party to hold the funds is suspicious in my book.

You worried about $50?

 

[nick1985]

You worried about $50?

The amount doesnt bother me, its the principle of a bet. Surely a man of integrity such as yourself understands that.

 

[Red Dawn]

The amount doesnt bother me, its the principle of a bet. Surely a man of integrity such as yourself understands that.

Your willing to make a bet with him but you don't trust him to pay it off if he loses?

I'd be more worried about Paul's opinion that private business owners should be able to discriminate based on race.

 

[nick1985]

Your willing to make a bet with him but you don't trust him to pay it off if he loses?

Oh come on, stop rolling your eyes. Its standard protocol that when making an internet bet, the money goes to a neutral 3rd party to hold. I'm not saying I dont trust him, I said his unwillingness to give money to a 3rd party is a red flag.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh come on, stop rolling your eyes. Its standard protocol that when making an internet bet, the money goes to a neutral 3rd party to hold. I'm not saying I dont trust him, I said his unwillingness to give money to a 3rd party is a red flag.

Since when?

And it doesn't bother you that in Paul's opinion a private owner of a business should be able to discriminate based on race?

 

[nick1985]

Since when?

Since the internet was made

 

[Red Dawn]

Since the internet was made

So you don't want to address my other question?

 

[nick1985]

So you don't want to address my other question?

Not really. Doesnt really have much to do with my bet. You can ask someone else

 

[Red Dawn]

Not really. Doesnt really have much to do with my bet. You can ask someone else

yeah I bet you wish it would just go away.

 

[nick1985]

yeah I bet you wish it would just go away.

Oh yes. I wish dearly. I woke up in the middle of the night in a pool of my own sweat, I just cant get it out of my head.

PM me if you want to discuss further with me Red, this back and forth is clogging the thread.

 

[BigDH01]

So Paul believes that owners of a private business should be allowed to discriminate based on race? Wow.

This is a difficult problem and in my mind boils down to some market-based fundamentals.

As long as the government does not preferentially distribute permits or fine/tax business, then I can see a strong argument for allowing private discrimination. If I imagine a small business such as a convenience store or restaurant, then I would simply say that discrimination would be foolish, but not dangerous. If this was prevalent in a few communities, I can even imagine myself going to the area to cater to the newly displaced customers. It seems like a fairly obvious proposition.

Then I think about markets without such mobility. The larger the corporation gets, the more imperfect the market, the bigger the impact of these decisions. What if the town only has one mechanic or one private clinic or one super store (Target, Wal-Mart, etc.)? The barriers to entry rise and the odds of a competitor decrease. What if private industries in one sector coordinate to deny service to a particular minority? Is that allowed (assuming they still compete for their allowed class of customer)?

In other words, in the presence of an efficient market, I don't think anti-discrimination laws are required. The more inefficient the market becomes, the more difficult it becomes to oppose anti-discrimination laws.

I'm not sure where that line should be drawn or if it can be.

 

[Red Dawn]

This is a difficult problem and in my mind boils down to some market-based fundamentals.

As long as the government does not preferentially distribute permits or fine/tax business, then I can see a strong argument for allowing private discrimination. If I imagine a small business such as a convenience store or restaurant, then I would simply say that discrimination would be foolish, but not dangerous. If this was prevalent in a few communities, I can even imagine myself going to the area to cater to the newly displaced customers. It seems like a fairly obvious proposition.

Then I think about markets without such mobility. The larger the corporation gets, the more imperfect the market, the bigger the impact of these decisions. What if the town only has one mechanic or one private clinic or one super store (Target, Wal-Mart, etc.)? The barriers to entry rise and the odds of a competitor decrease. What if private industries in one sector coordinate to deny service to a particular minority? Is that allowed (assuming they still compete for their allowed class of customer)?

In other words, in the presence of an efficient market, I don't think anti-discrimination laws are required. The more inefficient the market becomes, the more difficult it becomes to oppose anti-discrimination laws.

I'm not sure where that line should be drawn or if it can be.

Let's say the Business was a small locally owned Residential Property Management Firm. According to Paul they should be able to discriminate against certain people by not renting them housing based solely on their race. Sound good to you?

 

[Turin39789]

I figured you would be opposed to it, I wont be suprised when you welch on the bet either.

There's nothing to indicate he's going to back out... :\

Your willing to make a bet with him but you don't trust him to pay it off if he loses?

I'd be more worried about Paul's opinion that private business owners should be able to discriminate based on race.

The bet was made, we both said Done. Neither of us are new members here, so I considered that the equivilant of a handshake. If you are looking for a reason to back out, tough. I fulfill my obligations and will pay if it comes to that, I expect you to do the same without someone looking over our shoulders.

This thread isn't about a bet, why don't we just let it get back to it's topic(Like what voters think of "Paul's opinion a private owner of a business should be able to discriminate based on race? ")

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh yes. I wish dearly. I woke up in the middle of the night in a pool of my own sweat, I just cant get it out of my head.

You probably don't care, not because you are a racist but because Paul has an R next to his name and that's good enough for you.

 

[nick1985]

If you are looking for a reason to back out, tough.

lol

I fulfill my obligations and will pay if it comes to that, I expect you to do the same without someone looking over our shoulders.

Ok I can agree to that. :thumbsup: