PDA

View Full Version : Ann Coulter on Stossel battles room full of libertarian students (updated w full show vid)




jct74
02-21-2013, 10:35 PM
she says libertarians are "pussies" who want to suck up to liberals by legalizing pot

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ann-coulter-battles-stossel-calls-libertarians-pussies-and-gets-booed-by-room-full-of-students/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfAjdEHYb60



[update] here is the entire show in order:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vxretuQDBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_k0sMOpTQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIHZX4DHRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88cCiZkx8iw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3KUqLb9LY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xgUqBN9GA

AuH20
02-21-2013, 10:43 PM
She's kind of correct in her criticism. I always see some libertarians trying to curry favor with libtards over superficial nonsense. It's flat out bizarre. "No I'm not like THEM. I want to legalize pot and let you kill your children!!!" If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

COpatriot
02-21-2013, 11:13 PM
Do people still take this abrasive imbecile seriously? Ann Coulter could turn off a lifer in solitary.

UWDude
02-21-2013, 11:15 PM
Bigger issues Coulter? Like the unending wars?

AuH20
02-21-2013, 11:19 PM
Do people still take this abrasive imbecile seriously? Ann Coulter could turn off a lifer in solitary.

With that said, I can't find anything wrong with this statement. She's right:


“We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”

She's wrong on her rigid interpretation of marriage. She's wrong on the Iraq war. But she's dead on when she stated that some libertarians are overly deferential pussies in the presence of hardcore progs. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Smart3
02-21-2013, 11:22 PM
Coulter has gigantic balls. That much is true.

NIU Students for Liberty
02-21-2013, 11:33 PM
But she's dead on when she stated that some libertarians are overly deferential pussies in the presence of hardcore progs. I've seen it with my own eyes.

But that never happens in the presence of Republicans :rolleyes:

QuickZ06
02-21-2013, 11:34 PM
She said she is for the war in Iraq but against the war in Afghanistan, not sure if serious.

AuH20
02-21-2013, 11:35 PM
But that never happens in the presence of Republicans :rolleyes:

Much less frequently. That conversation usually ends with neocon this and neocon that.

itshappening
02-21-2013, 11:40 PM
She's a complete witch.

Yes, pot and every other drug should be de-criminalized. It's not prohibited in the constitution so what's her problem?

And the reason we have a socialist government is thanks to her cheerleading of Bush, his wars and his police state which includes the prohibition of drugs. Did she speak out when Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security and the TSA?

supermario21
02-21-2013, 11:42 PM
I agree with the criticism. At least guys like the Pauls and Amash complain about the welfare state entirely. I think Gary Johnson was pretty much in the let's legalize pot crowd as priority #1, especially when he trotted around in that stupid peace T-shirt. Doing that is pretty much dissing the liberty movement. Instead of an intellectual revolution petty arguments like pot legalization as a seemingly top priority make the movement seem elementary.

The Northbreather
02-21-2013, 11:44 PM
END ALL WARS.

Get it fuckin straight Ann you establishment robot.

itshappening
02-21-2013, 11:44 PM
Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”
-

Bush expanded Medicare, Bush continually extended unemployment insurance and Bush expanded the welfare state.

She loved Bush.

She's a complete and utter hypocrite.

Surprise, surprise.

AuH20
02-21-2013, 11:46 PM
I agree with the criticism. At least guys like the Pauls and Amash complain about the welfare state entirely. I think Gary Johnson was pretty much in the let's legalize pot crowd as priority #1, especially when he trotted around in that stupid peace T-shirt. Doing that is pretty much dissing the liberty movement. Instead of an intellectual revolution petty arguments like pot legalization as a seemingly top priority make the movement seem elementary.

For peer pressure reasons, some libertarians tip-toe around the heavy tyrannical issues that may offend the rank and file indoctrinated college student. Though I do get a kick out out of some anarcho-capitalists who do get in the face of these tools and point blank tell them that the government is solely predicated on theft and domination. The anarchos generally have bigger balls.

QuickZ06
02-21-2013, 11:47 PM
Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”
-

Bush expanded Medicare, Bush continually extended unemployment insurance and Bush expanded the welfare state.

She loved Bush.

She's a complete and utter hypocrite.

Surprise, surprise.

That, and every one of those libertarian girls were smokin compared to her, how come none live around me???

supermario21
02-21-2013, 11:48 PM
I'll never forget Ann when she was on Piers Morgan. He asked her "anything you like about Obama?" and she replied, "drones."

UpperDecker
02-22-2013, 12:19 AM
Complete bullshit statement. Sounds like the many who know nothing about libertarianism yet it scares them into shitty generalizations.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 12:23 AM
Uh... Legalizing pot is not a big issue?

That's essentially saying that the War on Drugs is a non-issue.

That's essentially saying the reason domestic police have been militarized, widespread use of No Knock Raids, and civil asset forfeiture is a non-issue. That's essentially saying the reason that the US has the highest prison population on the planet is a non-issue. That's like saying people who need cannabis for medical reasons is a non-issue. That's like saying the gang violence it perpetuates is a non-issue. That's like saying unconstitutional prohibition is a non-issue.

Marijuana prohibition (among all other illegal drugs, but pot especially) is a significant problem that culminates in the materialization of a domestic police state and significant amounts of violence and death not only in our own country, but in other countries as well with the USG exerting it's influence to affect drug policies across the globe.

It's a big issue and that's why there's a movement with millions of people who understand that and are attempting to change it.

BamaAla
02-22-2013, 12:35 AM
I guess it depends on what "libertarians" you're talking to. The folks I've met at SPLC, CPAC, or other events while supporting Ron Paul have been a lot deeper (if you will) that just singing about pot or prostitution. On the other hand, most of the young, wet behind the ears libertarians I converse with are as she claims. In fairness, I think the drug issue is how many folks first get their feet wet in libertarian thought. With that said, Ann isn't bat crap crazy with what she's saying here; like AuH20 says, I've seen it myself many times.

Beyond that, I've always thought we could use some folks with her gusto. Sure, she's sometimes abrasive and crass, but I've always dug her style.

COpatriot
02-22-2013, 12:38 AM
Coulter is no different than Hannity, Matthews, or Schultz. These people are all loyal little lapdogs for their favorite criminal political machines.

I don't know when it ever became "conservative" to arrest people for smoking a plant and starting unconstitutional, unprovoked wars of aggression on nations that couldn't hold a candle to us militarily. I must have missed the boat there.

Brian4Liberty
02-22-2013, 12:42 AM
The segment right before Coulter came on was about the Police State, the militarization of the Police, and SWAT teams doing no knock raids in the middle of the night, shooting dogs, and violating the Bill of Rights. That is all a result of the war on drugs. It has nothing to do with catering to anybody on the left, or a desire to use drugs. It's about personal liberty, the Bill of Rights and the Police State.

And that's before we talk about the wasted money spent on this nonsense, incarcerating drug users, instigating drug cartel wars, and creating an incentive for gangsters to shoot up the streets.

Ending the war on drugs is a libertarian issue, a fiscal conservative issue, and a law and order issue. Coulter is an idiot.

itshappening
02-22-2013, 12:43 AM
Uh... Legalizing pot is not a big issue?

That's essentially saying that the War on Drugs is a non-issue.

That's essentially saying the reason domestic police have been militarized, widespread use of No Knock Raids, and civil asset forfeiture is a non-issue. That's essentially saying the reason that the US has the highest prison population on the planet is a non-issue. That's like saying people who need cannabis for medical reasons is a non-issue. That's like saying the gang violence it perpetuates is a non-issue. That's like saying unconstitutional prohibition is a non-issue.

Marijuana prohibition (among all other illegal drugs, but pot especially) is a significant problem that culminates in the materialization of a domestic police state and significant amounts of violence and death not only in our own country, but in other countries as well with the USG exerting it's influence to affect drug policies across the globe.

It's a big issue and that's why there's a movement with millions of people who understand that and are attempting to change it.

And how much is being spent on prisons, DEA and the like...

Oh no but i'm Mrs. Conservative, except when it comes to certain substances. Then I support massive Federal spending, grants and prosecutions .

Brian4Liberty
02-22-2013, 12:45 AM
Uh... Legalizing pot is not a big issue?

That's essentially saying that the War on Drugs is a non-issue.

That's essentially saying the reason domestic police have been militarized, widespread use of No Knock Raids, and civil asset forfeiture is a non-issue. That's essentially saying the reason that the US has the highest prison population on the planet is a non-issue. That's like saying people who need cannabis for medical reasons is a non-issue. That's like saying the gang violence it perpetuates is a non-issue. That's like saying unconstitutional prohibition is a non-issue.

Marijuana prohibition (among all other illegal drugs, but pot especially) is a significant problem that culminates in the materialization of a domestic police state and significant amounts of violence and death not only in our own country, but in other countries as well with the USG exerting it's influence to affect drug policies across the globe.

It's a big issue and that's why there's a movement with millions of people who understand that and are attempting to change it.

+rep.

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 12:53 AM
She calls the drug war petty, yet rails against the state destroying families?? Beyond welfare, what has destroyed the family more so than the war on drugs?

COpatriot
02-22-2013, 01:13 AM
She calls the drug war petty, yet rails against the state destroying families?? Beyond welfare, what has destroyed the family more so than the war on drugs?

The overseas wars have done a pretty damn good job of that too, not just with the soldiers who don't return but also with the ones who return with scars, some visible, some invisible.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 01:16 AM
The overseas wars have done a pretty damn good job of that too, not just with the soldiers who don't return but also with the ones who return with scars, some visible, some invisible.

Don't forget the bored military wives who get preggers while hubby is overseas fighting for her freedoms.

DamianTV
02-22-2013, 02:03 AM
Embedded video for anyone who hasnt seen it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfAjdEHYb60&feature=player_detailpage

It appears to be missing some part of it, so if anyone has the full vid, well, you know what to do...

HOLLYWOOD
02-22-2013, 02:14 AM
All those media stations with their party alliance paid puppets and Ann Coulter is no different, it's all for profit. She's obnoxious on top of being a huge hypocrite. But there's a reason, it's called making money and fame, plus peddling her books too. All by creating controversy.

There should be an alert the next time she is on a call-in show like, C-SPAN, then, everyone call, on all phone lines, email, FB, Twitter, and rip her phony big game to pieces.

REMEMBER: Corporate media is the 4th branch of the US government... basically the Depart of Propaganda. Don't ever sympathize to their poison/potion dialect, their business is to profit from sensationalism of propaganda, while serving the US government in partnership covertly, it's creating the product out of the people; WARS, TERRORISM, TERRORISTS, CRISIS, FEAR, SECURITY, PARTISANSHIP, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION.

Never forget the time at the Pentagon, when corporate media were caught on a hot C-SPAN microphone talking... "See this room, half of us laid-off if Ron Paul becomes president" Media ratings would plummet to hell if there was peace in this country and especially the world. How does media spin PEACE? There's NO MONEY for the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) in peace. Ann Coulter would be out of a job and out of overpaid partisan appearances. Only thing I do agree upon with Bill Maher, They are CONMEN... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta, the Morning clowns, the afternoon puppets, the evening marionettes, Sunday morning Fascists, and Mr. Coulter too. All these CONMEN are paid $10Ks, $100Ks, Millions to CON(lie & push the agenda) you. Ever look at Hannity's speaking demands? 6 security guards, travel by private jet and limousines. Completely isolated from the public mundanes.

THE CON of Corporate Media and their Pundits are to play the indoctrinated viewers like a Broadway play... all of them and Ann Coulter are very good actors.

A Son of Liberty
02-22-2013, 04:29 AM
END ALL WARS.

Get it fuckin straight Ann you establishment robot.

Quit suckin' up to teh libtardz

tod evans
02-22-2013, 04:49 AM
So much truth!

+rep!




REMEMBER: Corporate media is the 4th branch of the US government... basically the Depart of Propaganda. Don't ever sympathize to their poison/potion dialect, they're business is to profit from sensationalism propaganda while serving the US government in partnership, it's creating the product out of the people; WARS, TERRORISM, TERRORISTS, CRISIS, FEAR, SECURITY, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION.

Never forget, the Pentagon media caught on Hot microphone... "See this room, half of us laid-off if Ron Paul becomes president" Media ratings would plummet to hell if there was peace in this country and especially the world. Coulter would be out of a job and out of overpaid appearances. Only thing I agree with Bill Maher, They are CONMEN... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta, the Morning clowns, the afternoon puppets, the evening marionettes, and Mr. Coulter too.

Corporate Media and their Pundits, play the indoctrinated viewers like a Broadway play... all of them and Ann Coulter are very good actors.

A Son of Liberty
02-22-2013, 04:56 AM
She's kind of correct in her criticism. I always see some libertarians trying to curry favor with libtards over superficial nonsense. It's flat out bizarre. "No I'm not like THEM. I want to legalize pot and let you kill your children!!!" If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

Yeah, what's tragic is that quote-unquote conservatives like Ann think that the libertarian position on drug legalization is superficial nonsense.

And the one issue besides IP on which there is almost no consensus amongst libertarians is abortion.

Conversely, what actually IS tragic is the way so many quote-unquote paleo-cons try to curry favor with the establishment GOP by playing footsies under the table with the warfare state.

If Ann actually had to debate a libertarian, point-by-point, in a proper format, she would be humiliated. Of course, that goes with most of these loudmouth media personalities.

compromise
02-22-2013, 05:14 AM
I don't know why people take Coulter seriously. She is unnecessarily provocative in order to attract attention, be it about gays, muslims, libertarians, blacks, Jews, whoever, she's just saying it because she knows it will turn heads. She probably doesn't even believe half the shit she says, and her opinions change all the time. I don't believe she actually has any sinister agenda, she's just out to make a quick buck.

On occasion she has something productive to say, but it's almost always the opposite of her host's point of view and she knows that.

A Son of Liberty
02-22-2013, 05:22 AM
I don't know why people take Coulter seriously. She is unnecessarily provocative in order to attract attention, be it about gays, muslims, libertarians, blacks, Jews, whoever, she's just saying it because she knows it will turn heads. She probably doesn't even believe half the shit she says, and her opinions change all the time. I don't believe she actually has any sinister agenda, she's just out to make a quick buck.

Her public positions on the wars and extra-judicial killings are sinister. People hear what she has to say, and consider her an authority. She has influence on the views of the voting public.

compromise
02-22-2013, 05:26 AM
Her public positions on the wars and extra-judicial killings are sinister. People hear what she has to say, and consider her an authority. She has influence on the views of the voting public.

Yeah, like 3-5% of the voting public who are far-right nuts. Not really much.

Brian Coulter
02-22-2013, 05:29 AM
...

seyferjm
02-22-2013, 07:50 AM
I was in the audience, lets just say there was way more booing than what was heard on the actual show last night. Right after she compared divorce to returning an appliance, some guy yelled out "THEY"RE HUMAN BEINGS!!1111"

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 07:57 AM
Let's see....so far this week RPF has had defenders of Glenn Beck, Phyllis Schlafly, and now Ann Coulter. :eek:

compromise
02-22-2013, 07:57 AM
Neocons are hardly the 'far-right'.

Coulter is hardly a neocon.

When in the company of neocons, she will oppose them:
http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/176033/

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 08:18 AM
Coulter is hardly a neocon.

What is it in this segment that she said which is not straight neocon?

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 08:23 AM
Coulter has gigantic balls. That much is true.

And an Adam's apple to go with them.

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 08:26 AM
Wait a minute. This moron says the Iraq war was good and the Afghanistan war was bad? WTF? So don't take out Osama Bin Laden, but take out Saddam because, even though the Bush administration admitted that wasn't true, Saddam was trying to fund Al Qaeda? She is too stupid to be taken seriously.

Edit: And I hate the fact that these kiddies didn't seize on that and instead honed in on gay marriage and pot.

Cleaner44
02-22-2013, 08:33 AM
I like how she ignores that we have such a socialist nation very much because of Republicans working with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion. Who gave us No Child Left Behind? Who legislates for subsides for farmers? Who expanded Medicare?

I wish some student would have asked Ann why she supports BIG GOVT Republicans over small government libertarians.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 08:43 AM
I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

otherone
02-22-2013, 08:45 AM
It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

It's ridiculous for establishment statists to characterize these issues as being huge issues to Libertarians.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 08:47 AM
It's ridiculous for establishment statists to characterize these issues as being huge issues to Libertarians.

They are huge issues to some of the younger libertarians.

VBRonPaulFan
02-22-2013, 09:26 AM
I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

To be fair, the war on drugs IS a big issue. it is what causes so many domestic problems and so much violence here in our country. To marginalize it like you just did, is morally wrong, IMO.

how can you feel like an overseas war is totally unjustified, but a slightly more silent and nefarious war here at home is less important?

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 09:27 AM
I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

She's wrong on saying marriage is a contract. It's not. It's a license. That's the problem.

CaptUSA
02-22-2013, 09:41 AM
Wait a minute. This moron says the Iraq war was good and the Afghanistan war was bad? WTF? So don't take out Osama Bin Laden, but take out Saddam because, even though the Bush administration admitted that wasn't true, Saddam was trying to fund Al Qaeda? She is too stupid to be taken seriously.

Edit: And I hate the fact that these kiddies didn't seize on that and instead honed in on gay marriage and pot.This is how this mindset goes: War in Iraq was good because we removed an enemy of America and, if we followed through properly, we could create a beacon for the entire middle east. They believe that terrorism is driven by the repressive regimes and the people are bound to act out of frustration. By removing repressive regimes and replacing them with freedom, the people would see economic benefit and would not want to bomb us. In Afghanistan, there was no regime. It's just a mess of mountains where you waste a lot of money for no return.

It's total hogwash, but this is what neocons believe. They think we are naive because we don't understand that bad leaders cause their subjects to aim their desperation our way. We tend to think they're pretty naive to think our bad leaders are going to be any better than theirs of deflecting this frustration.

BAllen
02-22-2013, 09:42 AM
You need to understand what we're up against. Socialists offer government benefits. So legalizing drugs is a way to get some of their supporters away from them. It also is a liberty issue as a person has an individual right to consume what they wish. And, despite billions of dollars, has this 'war on drugs' actually done any good? I wonder how much more good it would do to secure the border and check IDs and expel illegals. Of course some would say that is against freedoms, so what else is there?

Emerick
02-22-2013, 09:44 AM
Let me see if I understand her points.

1) She's against libertarians proposals because it's a fact that the government is meddling in such and such issues.

2) She's against the Welfare State.

3) Isn't a fact that government is meddling with welfare?

That reasoning is just nonsensical. All she's saying is this: all that can be changed is what I favor; everything else is just impossible.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 09:45 AM
I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

Do you know how many human beings are made victims for committing victimless non-crimes and being thrown in a cage?

Do you know how much money is spent on the DEA every year? How much money is spent caging non-violent people every year? How much is spent on local police departments every year? How many resources are tied up in this "non-issue"?

Do you know how many people die, not because marijuana is harmful, but due to gang violence and police violence every year due to prohibition? In the US and abroad?

Do you know the precedents that are set when they get away with unconstitutionally deciding they own your body enough to decide what can and can't go in it? When they can claim to search you or your property on weak grounds because you may be holding onto a prohibited substance.

Do you know how many utterly sick people can't get relief from pain and debilitating conditions because their medicine is illegal for political reasons?

Yeah totally not a huge issue at all. The drug war is a massive failure that results in widespread suffering and massive systematic loss of rights and directly contributing to increase in government power but who cares about all that. It's an issue that only affects some dirty hippies and teenage stoners, not morally upstanding people who can ignore that silly druggie nonsense.

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 09:46 AM
This is how this mindset goes: War in Iraq was good because we removed an enemy of America and, if we followed through properly, we could create a beacon for the entire middle east. They believe that terrorism is driven by the repressive regimes and the people are bound to act out of frustration. By removing repressive regimes and replacing them with freedom, the people would see economic benefit and would not want to bomb us. In Afghanistan, there was no regime. It's just a mess of mountains where you waste a lot of money for no return.

It's total hogwash, but this is what neocons believe. They think we are naive because we don't understand that bad leaders cause their subjects to aim their desperation our way. We tend to think they're pretty naive to think our bad leaders are going to be any better than theirs of deflecting this frustration.

So Coulter supports the Arab spring and the overthrow of Mubarrack? Or was that bad because it happened on a democrat's watch?

Acala
02-22-2013, 09:53 AM
You can make half your neighbors your enemy by focusing on their socialism. And you can make the other half of your neighbors your enemy by focusing on their authoritarianism. Or you can make all your neighbors your allies by showing them how freedom supports their interests. Some guy once said that freedom brings people together. It is, in my opinion, a sign of maturity in libertarians when they learn to find common ground with others, no matter what their politics, and then use that common ground to make the case for liberty in all spheres.

Coulter makes a living by creating enemies and lambasting them. That helps ratings but does not advance the cause of liberty.

CaptUSA
02-22-2013, 09:54 AM
So Coulter supports the Arab spring and the overthrow of Mubarrack? Or was that bad because it happened on a democrat's watch?

Lol, don't even get them started on Mubarrak. Lol... they don't know what to think. They wanted the leader overthrown, but not by the people doing it. They wanted the US to get involved earlier so that we could set up our own favorable regime, but they didn't want a Democrat taking credit for it because he would have done it wrong. Lol, their whole worldview gets completely blown apart when a democrat is in office!

BAllen
02-22-2013, 10:00 AM
You can make half your neighbors your enemy by focusing on their socialism. And you can make the other half of your neighbors your enemy by focusing on their authoritarianism. Or you can make all your neighbors your allies by showing them how freedom supports their interests. Some guy once said that freedom brings people together. It is, in my opinion, a sign of maturity in libertarians when they learn to find common ground with others, no matter what their politics, and then use that common ground to make the case for liberty in all spheres.

Coulter makes a living by creating enemies and lambasting them. That helps ratings but does not advance the cause of liberty.

That won't work with socialists. As long as they get their govenment check, why should they support freedoms? No guarantee there. They'll take the check in the box every time. I would be interested to know how you'd change their mind, though.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 10:04 AM
That won't work with socialists. As long as they get their govenment check, why should they support freedoms? No guarantee there. They'll take the check in the box every time. I would be interested to know how you'd change their mind, though.

I don't know about your average socialist leaning neighbors, some of them don't get checks and just think the government is a tool to help people worse off than them, but we can be sure that's at least true when it comes to our socialist police, they clearly care more about getting their government checks than protecting our freedoms.

presence
02-22-2013, 10:05 AM
Stossel played her well.

Brian4Liberty
02-22-2013, 10:09 AM
I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

If ending the war on drugs is not an issue to you, you are not a fiscal conservative, and you welcome the police state and the end of the Constitution.

Acala
02-22-2013, 10:20 AM
That won't work with socialists. As long as they get their govenment check, why should they support freedoms? No guarantee there. They'll take the check in the box every time. I would be interested to know how you'd change their mind, though.

It depends on the issue.

If we are talking about government as provider, I can use any of the following:

1. The fact that the war on poverty has utterly failed by any measure.
2. The brute force behind government "charity". The average democrat doesn't like to think about the gun-in-the-face behind the programs
3. The truth that you cannot delegate your own responsibility to love and care for your fellow man without it being corrupted. The implication that their socialism is just a form of laziness appeals to their sense of guilt.
4. The logical conclusion that whatever deficiency they think there is in the character of private sector man, it will also exist in government man.

You can also talk about foreign policy, the bedroom police, crony-capitalism, the banking cartel, etc. And those are EASY.

ctiger2
02-22-2013, 10:24 AM
Regulate interstate commerce and protect us. Good god is she dumb. Ignore.

Pericles
02-22-2013, 10:26 AM
It depends on the issue.

If we are talking about government as provider, I can use any of the following:

1. The fact that the war on poverty has utterly failed by any measure.
2. The brute force behind government "charity". The average democrat doesn't like to think about the gun-in-the-face behind the programs
3. The truth that you cannot delegate your own responsibility to love and care for your fellow man without it being corrupted. The implication that their socialism is just a form of laziness appeals to their sense of guilt.
4. The logical conclusion that whatever deficiency they think there is in the character of private sector man, it will also exist in government man.

You can also talk about foreign policy, the bedroom police, crony-capitalism, the banking cartel, etc. And those are EASY.

While I agree with you, I would point out that right wingers usually feel the need to have some form of logical consistency in their views, and left wingers are more willing to go the "feelings" route when inconsistent views are held.

PaulConventionWV
02-22-2013, 10:43 AM
Ann Coulter is a non-issue. I seriously don't care about her. She's just as much an establishment hack as all of the other establishment hacks, and an establishment hack she shall remain.

The Free Hornet
02-22-2013, 10:49 AM
She's kind of correct in her criticism. I always see some libertarians trying to curry favor with libtards over superficial nonsense. It's flat out bizarre. "No I'm not like THEM. I want to legalize pot and let you kill your children!!!" If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

Wouldn't Coulter's "pussy" qualify their bullshit "some libertarians", rather than taking a firmer stand?

Who talks of "legalization" when decriminalization is the better term? The illiberal progressives want their activities legalized and permitted - literally complete with paperwork and fees to their experts of choice. The libertarian wants government out of that picture 100%.

When I want to speak about you, it won't be about "some Goldwater fans", it'll be about you.

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 10:50 AM
Quick answer to Ann Coulter on drug laws. "Let me see if I get this straight. You don't want to pay for unemployment benefits of people who may get fired after testing positive for drugs, but you are willing to pay three times that much to keep those same people locked up for using drugs? How about just writing into any drug legalization law that if you get fired for abusing drugs or alcohol you don't get any unemployment benefits?"

Acala
02-22-2013, 10:56 AM
While I agree with you, I would point out that right wingers usually feel the need to have some form of logical consistency in their views, and left wingers are more willing to go the "feelings" route when inconsistent views are held.

Perhaps, but I think there are plenty of emotion-driven views on both sides. They are just different emotions.

Brian4Liberty
02-22-2013, 11:01 AM
I was in the audience, lets just say there was way more booing than what was heard on the actual show last night. Right after she compared divorce to returning an appliance, some guy yelled out "THEY"RE HUMAN BEINGS!!1111"

Did anyone point out to Coulter the connection between the police state (as discussed on the show before her) and how that stems from the war on drugs?

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 11:04 AM
Wouldn't Coulter's "pussy"

I'd say it would be more fitting to just call it an asshole, but then again the only thing fitting about it would be Coulter's fist.

youngbuck
02-22-2013, 11:07 AM
The very first f'kn thing she says is the catch-all "regulate interstate commerce." What she's really saying is that everything the government IS doing, it SHOULD be doing. Hardcore, deluded statist, plain and simple.

It really bugs me how she is, I guess at least on the surface, correct in what shes said concerning the departments of education, commerce and agriculture, but she can't extend that position to other topics (drugs, marriage, etc.) It's like being intentionally half-way enlightened, but refusing full enlightenment. Essentially, she lacks philosophical consistency and purity of any kind.

EBounding
02-22-2013, 11:34 AM
I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!

AuH20
02-22-2013, 11:43 AM
I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!

Very true. But not all true libertarians are like that. It seems that the younger, more naive members are the ones who are obsessed with the alluring bells and whistles of secondary issues like marijuana (not the drug war) and gay marriage.

CaptUSA
02-22-2013, 11:48 AM
I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 11:51 AM
It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.

Libertarians LOVE hanging separately. It's what they do....

LibertyEagle
02-22-2013, 12:21 PM
It's ridiculous for establishment statists to characterize these issues as being huge issues to Libertarians.

They sure as heck are talked about on these forums a lot, if they aren't important issues.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 12:21 PM
To be fair, the war on drugs IS a big issue. it is what causes so many domestic problems and so much violence here in our country. To marginalize it like you just did, is morally wrong, IMO.

how can you feel like an overseas war is totally unjustified, but a slightly more silent and nefarious war here at home is less important?

Well, I guess it is at least an important issue at the federal level, because the principle of states' rights and state sovereignty is very important. And I don't support the war on drugs at the state level either, but it just isn't something I would really run on if I were running for office.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 12:24 PM
If ending the war on drugs is not an issue to you, you are not a fiscal conservative, and you welcome the police state and the end of the Constitution.

When did I say that it isn't an issue? I said that I oppose the war on drugs, but it just isn't my number one issue, and shouldn't be the number one issue to libertarians. I wish people could learn to read.

EBounding
02-22-2013, 12:32 PM
It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

Exactly. Instead of taking her argumentative bait, this could have been an opportunity to find out what she thinks about the TSA, spying on Americans, and the Federal Reserve. Maybe ask her what she thinks of the GOP leadership stomping on the grassroots. And it's not just to build a coalition with her, it's to persuade the conservative Stossel viewer who might be leery of libertarians.

BAllen
02-22-2013, 12:44 PM
I don't know about your average socialist leaning neighbors, some of them don't get checks and just think the government is a tool to help people worse off than them, but we can be sure that's at least true when it comes to our socialist police, they clearly care more about getting their government checks than protecting our freedoms.

Amazing. Every conversation with you leads to police. Why are you so paranoid? Lemme guess. You spend your spare time watching videos on youtube, cop shows on tv, etc. till your mind is filled with 'police state' paranoia.

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 12:46 PM
Very true. But not all true libertarians are like that. It seems that the younger, more naive members are the ones who are obsessed with the alluring bells and whistles of secondary issues like marijuana (not the drug war) and gay marriage.

Acala explained it quite eloquently (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405306-Video-Ann-Coulter-on-Stossel-battles-room-full-of-libertarians-SFL-conference&p=4888896&viewfull=1#post4888896), and you'd do well to focus on this.
I'm willing to bet heavily that at least a third of that audience has voted Republican in the past. They stopped voting Republican.
What does Coulter offer them? If you come back into the fold, you'll get more PATRIOT act, more wars, more police state, and more social engineering. If you don't come back into the fold, you can expect to be treated like morons.

They've tried the "treat potential Republican voters like shit" strategy for a bunch of elections now.
It doesn't work.

Those kids, whether they are only in it for the pot or actually have a consistent philosophy and are simply too young to put a wise old serpent like Coulter in her place, are holding the electoral power. They are the key. Without them, there are no more Republican presidents... and eventually, no more Republican anything.

It is probably a good idea for people who want access to that political power to change their tone.

BAllen
02-22-2013, 12:47 PM
It depends on the issue.

If we are talking about government as provider, I can use any of the following:

1. The fact that the war on poverty has utterly failed by any measure.
2. The brute force behind government "charity". The average democrat doesn't like to think about the gun-in-the-face behind the programs
3. The truth that you cannot delegate your own responsibility to love and care for your fellow man without it being corrupted. The implication that their socialism is just a form of laziness appeals to their sense of guilt.
4. The logical conclusion that whatever deficiency they think there is in the character of private sector man, it will also exist in government man.

You can also talk about foreign policy, the bedroom police, crony-capitalism, the banking cartel, etc. And those are EASY.

I've used those arguments time and again. They fall on deaf ears. They'll take security over freedoms EVERY time. That is why the marxists love third world immigrants. They are easy to bribe.

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 12:48 PM
Amazing. Every conversation with you leads to police. Why are you so paranoid? Lemme guess. You spend your spare time watching videos on youtube, cop shows on tv, etc. till your mind is filled with 'police state' paranoia.

Um... yeah... dude, it has only been 10 days since the fuzz intentionally burned someone alive on national TV. Are you like that Memento guy or something?

AuH20
02-22-2013, 12:53 PM
Acala explained it quite eloquently (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?405306-Video-Ann-Coulter-on-Stossel-battles-room-full-of-libertarians-SFL-conference&p=4888896&viewfull=1#post4888896), and you'd do well to focus on this.
I'm willing to bet heavily that at least a third of that audience has voted Republican in the past. They stopped voting Republican.
What does Coulter offer them? If you come back into the fold, you'll get more PATRIOT act, more wars, more police state, and more social engineering. If you don't come back into the fold, you can expect to be treated like morons.

They've tried the "treat potential Republican voters like shit" strategy for a bunch of elections now.
It doesn't work.

Those kids, whether they are only in it for the pot or actually have a consistent philosophy and are simply too young to put a wise old serpent like Coulter in her place, are holding the electoral power. They are the key. Without them, there are no more Republican presidents... and eventually, no more Republican anything.

It is probably a good idea for people who want access to that political power to change their tone.

I think you're giving them far too much credit for their thought process (or lack thereof). No, it sounds more like disgruntled liberals who transitioned over to libertarianism because it sounds "easy" and socially acceptable.

Let's forget about the mind-numbing duopoly which defines American politics for a second. Given what we know about the massive surveillance state and outright financial graft built into our national economy, how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns?? This prioritization signals me to that the audience in particular, while being principled is hopelessly immature and short-sighted.

Brian4Liberty
02-22-2013, 12:55 PM
When did I say that it isn't an issue? I said that I oppose the war on drugs, but it just isn't my number one issue, and shouldn't be the number one issue to libertarians. I wish people could learn to read.

So it's an issue, but just not one to deal with?


I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 01:03 PM
Let's forget about the mind-numbing duopoly which defines American politics for a second. Given what we know about the massive surveillance state and outright financial graft built into our national economy, how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns?? This prioritization signals me to that the audience in particular, while being principled is hopelessly immature and short-sighted.

Ok so let me rephrase three questions and see if we can get an answer.

1) Which of their other platform issues will be achieved by voting for Republicans?

2) How many Republicans are going to win without them?

3) Given that Republicans offer them nothing, and given that Republicans will lose without them, what exactly is their incentive not to sound like a bunch of stoner *****?

LibertyEagle
02-22-2013, 01:03 PM
Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

dannno
02-22-2013, 01:05 PM
She's wrong on her rigid interpretation of marriage. She's wrong on the Iraq war. But she's dead on when she stated that some libertarians are overly deferential pussies in the presence of hardcore progs. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Ok, fine, then Rand Paul is a pussy with Republicans when it comes to foreign policy..

It's called strategy, and it's a good one. You get people on your side, get them to see that you do have some common beliefs and then you help them come around on other issues. It's the same thing no matter what direction you are going in. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are less likely to get progressives on their side because they don't agree on anything. I have a better shot, one on one, than they do because I have some common beliefs with progressives. Conversely, I have convinced war hawks who believed in a violent foreign policy, which I see as more atrocious than our welfare state, that our government's foreign policy needs to be curtailed immensely and I've convinced progressives that maybe the government isn't the best at taking care of people and maybe they can't solve our health care problem, etc..

Ann Coulter just likes to say inflammatory shit, she may be right that some libertarians try to find common ground with progressives but it doesn't make them pussies. It makes them intelligent. There are plenty of socialists who have come around to free markets, all this bullshit about leftists will never come around is just that - complete bullshit. Some of them won't, but some Republicans won't come around on foreign policy either so we just have to do the best we can. I don't have a lot of conservatives in my circle, so I end up talking to more progressives. According to some people on this board, I guess I should just give up and go find some conservatives and try and drive into their heads how violent our foreign policy is while they are likely going to be scared of Muslims for the rest of their lives and there is nothing I may (or may not) be able to do about it.

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 01:06 PM
Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

I have listened and I see what you're saying.
My counter is this: we perceive you as someone who thinks that not looking like a stoner **** is more important than stopping the police state.

sparebulb
02-22-2013, 01:09 PM
Dude looks like a lady.

Coulter has a suspiciously large adam's apple.

compromise
02-22-2013, 01:09 PM
What is it in this segment that she said which is not straight neocon?

"But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too."

AuH20
02-22-2013, 01:09 PM
Ok so let me rephrase three questions and see if we can get an answer.

1) Which of their other platform issues will be achieved by voting for Republicans?

2) How many Republicans are going to win without them?

3) Given that Republicans offer them nothing, and given that Republicans will lose without them, what exactly is their incentive not to sound like a bunch of stoner *****?

I don't think this is about Republican or Democrat. It's more about an undeveloped political philosophy that prides itself on superficialities, to it's own detriment. LINOs or the libertarians who eschew personal responsibility. This crowd isn't exactly Stefan Molyneaux, who I respect greatly. Besides this board, how many libertarians have you personally met who really can articulate what it means to be a libertarian, without relying on all the immature, tired imagery?

CaptUSA
02-22-2013, 01:14 PM
I'll refer you back to my earlier post. It's not about the drug war, gay marriage, getting high, or any other policy issue. It's about arguing with people where we disagree instead of working with people where we agree. We love to argue - which has been demonstrated beautifully in this thread.

Coulter could have picked anything - the issue didn't matter. Chris Matthews can do the same thing to us. We want to argue with people about how they're wrong and we're right. All this does is push our would-be supporters further away. On both sides. It's futile.

UWDude
02-22-2013, 01:16 PM
how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns??

People are not imprisoned and have their lives destroyed for same sex marriage licenses.
People are imprisoned and have their lives destroyed over a plant.

The second statement is very concerning.

fisharmor
02-22-2013, 01:21 PM
I don't think this is about Republican or Democrat. It's more about an undeveloped political philosophy that prides itself on superficialities, to it's own detriment. LINOs or the libertarians who eschew personal responsibility. This crowd isn't exactly Stefan Molyneaux, who I respect greatly. Besides this board, how many libertarians have you personally met who really can articulate what it means to be a libertarian, without relying on all the immature, tired imagery?

Well the context of this discussion is Coulter browbeating a bunch of kids for not voting Republican.
How many Republicans can articulate what it means to be a Republican?
How many Democrats can articulate what it means to be a Democrat?
Aren't their images just as tired? And libertarians who talk about legalizing pot have an advantage: decriminalization is not just a bargaining chip for libertarians. A Republican who gets into office is going to pass deficit budgets the first chance he gets, and a Democrat who gets into office is going to pass war resolutions first chance he gets.

At least the libertarians who only talk about decriminalization are actually serious about it, as opposed to just paying lip service to an issue and then gouging out its eye and skull fucking it. (But not too close to election season! Be sure to simply not be in session then!)

But as I already pointed out, none of that even matters - because these stoner hippie *** lovers have stopped the train. It's not going anywhere until the people who have a problem with stoner hippie *** lovers stop having a problem with stoner hippie *** lovers and actually try to get their votes.

I actually met David Friedman before I was libertarian and before I knew who he was, does he count?

AuH20
02-22-2013, 01:22 PM
People are not imprisoned and have their lives destroyed for same sex marriage licenses.
People are imprisoned and have their lives destroyed over a plant.

The second statement is very concerning.

Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state????? That's my point. This micro perspective on trivial issues is alarming. I view the entire Federal Leviathan as harmful and ulitmately feel that limiting it's resources and scope of enforcement will ultimately lead to the specific goals that you seek. It's all interconnected. For example, I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 01:25 PM
Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state????? That's my point. This micro perspective on trivial issues is alarming. I view the entire Federal Leviathan as harmful and ulitmately feel that limiting it's resources and scope of enforcement will ultimately lead to the specific goals that you seek. It's all interconnected. For example, I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

The people in Colorado support legalizing marijuana and banning guns, but apparently legalizing marijuana is the more important issue, at least to people here.

dannno
02-22-2013, 01:28 PM
Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

What a bunch of BULLSHIT.

It is absolutely true that people who smoke cannabis, for the first time, will after some personal contemplation often change their philosophical position on freedom as it relates to the ingestion of ALL substances. Do you REALLY think people who smoke cannabis want to end the war on drugs so they can do heroin?!! No! But they do realize that people should have the freedom to do things that don't hurt other people whether or not it may affect their own consciousness.

So there is a fundamental shift in thought patterns that will often occur after one ingests cannabis, and while they may not make the logical connection and apply that philosophy to every area of life, it doesn't mean that they want to legalize drugs just so they can get 'high'. It means they are starving for freedom of consciousness and freedom to engage on peaceful activities of their choice.. and they want to apply it to others as well and let them make their own choices. Not to mention, most tokers are equipped with the knowledge of how the drug war and police state affects everybody's rights and increases crime. If you took a survey of people who had a technical understanding of how the drug war increases crime and poverty and you asked them whether they personally use cannabis, I guarantee you will find that many more cannabis users or past cannabis users understand this connection than non-cannabis users.

Case in point: Many people who are undecided about the war on drugs toke up in college and realize that it is wrong and cannabis should be legal. Many of these people toke for a few years while in college and may quit at some point with no regrets. Most of these people hold onto the belief that cannabis should be legal. Therefore they don't hold the belief because 'they want to get high', they hold it because they know it's the right thing to do.

I don't think it is an accident that the majority of people here either currently toke or would toke if they could or did so in the past without any regrets. You don't have to ingest cannabis to understand the freedom philosophy, but it certainly helps and it certainly pushes people in that direction, even if they get distracted by some radical leftist philosophy and they don't fully comprehend how collectivist ideology goes against personal freedom.

AuH20
02-22-2013, 01:30 PM
The people in Colorado support legalizing marijuana and banning guns, but apparently legalizing marijuana is the more important issue, at least to people here.

In a SHTF economic collapse, what would you feel more comfortable with??????????? A few ounces of pot or a Colt AR-15 with a few cartridge boxes??? This is the bread and circus nonsense that the TPTB count on. Not that there is anything wrong with pot and hemp, but it's secondary to your survival and ultimately independence. This is the reason why I rail on fashionable phonies who call themselves libertarians, because they want all the trappings that come with being a libertarian, but none of the hard, critical analysis.

UWDude
02-22-2013, 01:35 PM
Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues

Stop lumping the two together. I have already clarified why one is trivial, and one isn't.
Unjust prison terms are worse than unjust fines which are worse than unjust access to courts over domestic disputes.


were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state?????

Yes, it still would be. It would take thousands of reversals of all sorts of trivial issues to reverse the tyrannical personality of the United States.


I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

I as well.

UWDude
02-22-2013, 01:38 PM
In a SHTF economic collapse, what would you feel more comfortable with??????????? A few ounces of pot or a Colt AR-15 with a few cartridge boxes??? This is the bread and circus nonsense that the TPTB count on. Not that there is anything wrong with pot and hemp, but it's secondary to your survival and ultimately independence. This is the reason why I rail on fashionable phonies who call themselves libertarians, because they want all the trappings that come with being a libertarian, but none of the hard, critical analysis.


This is that tired "you can only care about one issue at a time" schtick. I am of the position RPG's and armored tanks should be legal. So what now?

AuH20
02-22-2013, 01:42 PM
This is that tired "you can only care about one issue at a time" schtick. I am of the position RPG's and armored tanks should be legal. So what now?

Well, I'm glad you aren't aboard the train for style points, which I suspect since you are a regular contributor on the board. I'm sorry for sounding like a prick but I personally know people who proclaim themselves libertarian for the wrong reasons.

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 01:43 PM
Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

So how about talking about the costs of the WOD? Cause Coulter used the "I wouldn't mind if I didn't think I'd have to pay for healthcare for druggies" argument. You have to pay for healthcare for people in prison.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 01:45 PM
I shouldn't have said that the war on drugs isn't an important issue or shouldn't be discussed, but I just meant that it isn't the most important issue, as some of the younger libertarians think it is. I personally view something like 2nd amendment rights as being more important.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 01:52 PM
I shouldn't have said that the war on drugs isn't an important issue or shouldn't be discussed, but I just meant that it isn't the most important issue, as some of the younger libertarians think it is. I personally view something like 2nd amendment rights as being more important.

IMO, any issue that violates the Constitution is just as important as any other issue that violates the Constitution. It's a matter of priority to me to get back to Constitutional principles on ALL issues.

LibertyEagle
02-22-2013, 01:53 PM
I have listened and I see what you're saying.
My counter is this: we perceive you as someone who thinks that not looking like a stoner **** is more important than stopping the police state.

Last time I knew, I was part of "we" and you may have listened, but you did not hear what I was saying. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. It is about the perception that we give others of our movement. If to get rid of the War on Drugs, we need paleocons and others to be with us on this, then speak to them about it in terms that they care about and present yourself as such.

Giuliani was there on 911
02-22-2013, 01:56 PM
she has a point

Rothbardian Girl
02-22-2013, 01:57 PM
I am actually going to go out on a limb and partially agree with AuH20 here. Although I find Coulter's ideology and vitriol to be utterly repugnant, I do think she made a somewhat valid point about some (I'm going to be ageist against my own age group here and call them mainly college-age) libertarians who seem to only be capable of arguing against drug prohibition from a personal freedom standpoint, which also happens to be the more outwardly emotional argument against prohibition. I ironically do think that the later debates she had with the various students served to reinforce her point. Emotional platitudes of "I should be able to put what I want in my body!" just don't work with people like Ann who can only see that money comes out of their paychecks to [at least ostensibly] pay for people's drug habits. I think most people on this board know that not all welfare recipients are drug abusers, and that this argument smacks of class warfare and is ultimately close to irrelevant, but it's essentially what you're going to get from most mainstream conservatives.

Although Coulter's point was perhaps deliberately simplistic, most mainstream conservatives are going to agree with her. I do realize that the TV format makes things a little awkward for everyone who is not already used to being on TV (like most of those students) and they will often say the simplest things that come to mind. Stossel should know better as an experienced journalist and TV host, though. I've never been a big fan of his because I tend to think he's another populist libertarian that oversimplifies a lot of issues. The key is finding the right mixture of entertainment and sound arguments in favor of libertarian talking points, and so far I haven't really seen that.

LibertyEagle
02-22-2013, 01:59 PM
I'll refer you back to my earlier post. It's not about the drug war, gay marriage, getting high, or any other policy issue. It's about arguing with people where we disagree instead of working with people where we agree. We love to argue - which has been demonstrated beautifully in this thread.

Coulter could have picked anything - the issue didn't matter. Chris Matthews can do the same thing to us. We want to argue with people about how they're wrong and we're right. All this does is push our would-be supporters further away. On both sides. It's futile.

Very true.

UWDude
02-22-2013, 02:18 PM
Well, I'm glad you aren't aboard the train for style points, which I suspect since you are a regular contributor on the board. I'm sorry for sounding like a prick but I personally know people who proclaim themselves libertarian for the wrong reasons.

Well I don't like you half the time. But that leaves the half of the time that I do, which is more than I can say for the general populace. :P

Natural Citizen
02-22-2013, 02:19 PM
Last time I knew, I was part of "we" and you may have listened, but you did not hear what I was saying. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. It is about the perception that we give others of our movement. If to get rid of the War on Drugs, we need paleocons and others to be with us on this, then speak to them about it in terms that they care about and present yourself as such.

Hm. Can't give you another rep right after I just did but wow do you have that right. Spot on. Was just sharing a similar model in the tv show thread. Indirectly as it may have been depending upon how perceptive the viewer was. I like to sneak little puns in once in a while just to see if anyone is paying attention. Although different subject matter it's basically the same model you point out. But yes. You're absolutely right.

heavenlyboy34
02-22-2013, 02:30 PM
All those media stations with their party alliance paid puppets and Ann Coulter is no different all for profit. She's obnoxious on top of being the a huge hypocrite, but there's a reason, it called money and fame.

There should be an alert the next time she is on a call in show like C-SPAN, and everyone call in on all the lines and rip her phony game to pieces.

REMEMBER: Corporate media is the 4th branch of the US government... basically the Depart of Propaganda. Don't ever sympathize to their poison/potion dialect, they're business is to profit from sensationalism propaganda while serving the US government in partnership, it's creating the product out of the people; WARS, TERRORISM, TERRORISTS, CRISIS, FEAR, SECURITY, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION.

Never forget, at the Pentagon, corporate media caught on Hot microphone... "See this room, half of us laid-off if Ron Paul becomes president" Media ratings would plummet to hell if there was peace in this country and especially the world. Coulter would be out of a job and out of overpaid appearances. Only thing I do agree upon with Bill Maher, They are CONMEN... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta, the Morning clowns, the afternoon puppets, the evening marionettes, and Mr. Coulter too. All these CONMEN are paid $10Ks, $100Ks, Millions to CON(lie & push the agenda) you.

Corporate Media and their Pundits, play the indoctrinated viewers like a Broadway play... all of them and Ann Coulter are very good actors.
fucking THIS!^^ Amazing how history keeps repeating itself regarding media/State alliances. Orwell and the other great dystopian writers were right.

jmdrake
02-22-2013, 03:10 PM
I think you're giving them far too much credit for their thought process (or lack thereof). No, it sounds more like disgruntled liberals who transitioned over to libertarianism because it sounds "easy" and socially acceptable.

Let's forget about the mind-numbing duopoly which defines American politics for a second. Given what we know about the massive surveillance state and outright financial graft built into our national economy, how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns?? This prioritization signals me to that the audience in particular, while being principled is hopelessly immature and short-sighted.

Part of the reason for that "massive surveillance state" is to support the war on drugs. Do you think it's easier to get people to "just say no" to the police state despite fears about pot than it is to get people to "just say no" to the police state over fears about terrorists? I agree the focus of these youngsters was a bit off. I'm surprised nobody hit her on her "Iraq war good / Afghan war bad" hypocrisy. But the GWOD is almost as responsible for the surveillance state as the GWOT. And now we have the GWOI shaping up. (Global War On Immigration).

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 05:50 PM
It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.
+Rep

Bastiat's The Law
02-22-2013, 05:56 PM
Well I don't like you half the time. But that leaves the half of the time that I do, which is more than I can say for the general populace. :P
Luckily neither of you are against a little bromance. :p

itshappening
02-22-2013, 06:22 PM
By the way I love the way she calls libertarians "pussies" when we were the only ones standing up to Bush when he was expanding government.

Where was she? on Fox News as a cheerleader and shill attacking the blue team.

She's a total dishonest hack.

Boss
02-22-2013, 06:50 PM
I find this video an excellent demonstration of the sharp contrast between Neoconservativism and Libertarianism. The next time someone hastily blurs the line between the two, I'll be happy to showcase this video.

haaaylee
02-22-2013, 08:13 PM
does anyone have a link to the whole show? ? haven't time right now to go through all these pages. . .

AGRP
02-22-2013, 08:20 PM
It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.

That must explain why Paul would have got the nomination if the primaries were accurately conducted.


Libertarians LOVE hanging separately. It's what they do....

What do you do? Troll forums?

anaconda
02-22-2013, 08:39 PM
She's looking good for 51.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 08:39 PM
Amazing. Every conversation with you leads to police. Why are you so paranoid? Lemme guess. You spend your spare time watching videos on youtube, cop shows on tv, etc. till your mind is filled with 'police state' paranoia.

Can you explain to me what about my comment was "paranoid"?

Do you recognize that the Drug War, which is one of the main topic of this thread, is enforced by police?

You're ragging on "socialists" for valuing receiving their government checks over people's freedom. I'm just pointing out the fact that what you said could be applied to those authority figures you're so enamored with even more so than your average left-leaning neighbor.

Law Enforcement put people in cages for buying/selling and possessing legitimate property voluntarily on the market simply because politicians have (unconstitutionally, at least alcohol prohibition involved an amendment) declared those substances to be "illegal". They steal property, both in the form of drugs but also other assets, and search people over it. They fine people and ruin their lives over it. That's just one example of their job being to enforce anti-freedom edicts, and it's one directly relevant to this thread.

How does what I said not apply? And it doesn't just go for drugs. It goes for any authoritarian edict that the police enforce as part of their job. You're claiming that socialists care about receiving a government check more than they do about freedom. I'm saying that, if you want to put it that way, that exact line of thought can be applied to the individuals at our socialist police forces (which you seem to love) who obey commands made by authoritarians trying to mold society and extract our wealth. By their very actions it can clearly be shown that what you said applies to our socialist police, who clearly care more about getting paid their "government checks" in return for a job in which they themselves are the tip of the spear when it comes to taking away the freedoms the politicians want to take.

Obviously if they cared more about protecting freedoms than a check they wouldn't be getting paid in government checks which were extracted from their "customers" in the first place. It's clearly a socialist protection racket, and a tool being used to try to mold society rather than to protect individual freedom.

I was simply showing that your logic can be applied even better to those socialist police you seem to adore, even more-so than your average "liberal" neighbor, who may not even be getting a check at all but simply thinks the government is a tool to help poor people. Of course you turned that around to me being "paranoid", which doesn't even make sense, so that you can continue your love affair with police authority and not look at police in the context of 'socialists more interested in receiving government checks over freedom', which perfectly applies to them even more than the group you were trying to lambast.

So what exactly was "paranoid" about what I wrote, and how are police not only directly relevant to what's being discussed in this thread, but also even more relevant to your own comments about having an interest in government checks over freedom? Please go on and explain that...

anaconda
02-22-2013, 08:42 PM
I can't believe that Ann is saying Saddam was supporting terrorists.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 08:48 PM
At 3:34 everyone just laughed at her. Classic.

Jeremy
02-22-2013, 08:52 PM
Libertarians pretending to be offended by funny jokes is very cringe-worthy for me. And then applaud like a crazy mob at one libertarian talking point... very irritating. She probably felt like she was on Bill Maher's show. Libertarians can be very annoying in person, especially in large groups.

anaconda
02-22-2013, 08:53 PM
Why don't the libertarians ever say publicly that the war on drugs is a front for the police state apparatus and for the purpose of funding off budget illegal programs? Instead of "WHY CAN'T I PUT WHATEVER I WANT INTO MY BODY?!!!!..."

Brett85
02-22-2013, 09:00 PM
IMO, any issue that violates the Constitution is just as important as any other issue that violates the Constitution. It's a matter of priority to me to get back to Constitutional principles on ALL issues.

Yeah, but it's not unconstitutional for state governments to ban drugs. I guess I'm not sure whether we're talking about the federal war on drugs or state drug prohibition. I don't support either, but I view ending the federal war on drugs as being a much higher priority than ending state drug prohibition.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 09:03 PM
Libertarians pretending to be offended by funny jokes is very cringe-worthy for me. And then applaud like a crazy mob at one libertarian talking point... very irritating. She probably felt like she was on Bill Maher's show. Libertarians can be very annoying in person, especially in large groups.

I actually thought it was really funny she called libertarians "moblike" after she essentially collectively called anyone who identifies themselves with libertarianism a "pussy"... in a room full of individuals who clearly identify with libertarianism.

"Libertarians are pussies."

"Stop attacking poor ol' me! For individualists you are all very moblike!!!!!"

lol.

Expatriate
02-22-2013, 09:36 PM
Libertarians can be very annoying in person, especially in large groups.

I find everyone annoying in large groups.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 09:45 PM
Yeah, but it's not unconstitutional for state governments to ban drugs. I guess I'm not sure whether we're talking about the federal war on drugs or state drug prohibition. I don't support either, but I view ending the federal war on drugs as being a much higher priority than ending state drug prohibition.

I was speaking of the federal war on drugs. States have the right to decide those issues themselves....IMO, that's the way it should be.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 09:54 PM
States don't have rights, individuals do.

If you can't point a gun at your neighbor and demand that they stop using Ibuprofen or drink Caffeine in their own home because you think they're "bad substances", then you can't delegate that "authority" to your "state representative" either.

Brett85
02-22-2013, 10:03 PM
States don't have rights, individuals do.

If you can't point a gun at your neighbor and demand that they stop using Ibuprofen or drink Caffeine in their own home because you think they're "bad substances", then you can't delegate that "authority" to your "state representative" either.

Ron Paul would certainly disagree. He's often said that the states have the right to ban drugs, that the issue should be decided by the states. The U.S Constitution doesn't contain any kind of right to drug use.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 10:22 PM
Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people’s money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

-from the appendix to Ron Paul’s great 2012 book Liberty Defined

Where you think the "authority" this group claims comes from? How do you delegate rights to a representative that you don't have?
You're arbitrarily giving special powers to an organization, because you want to use it to express power in ways that you can't as an individual.

Ron Paul may have argued against the Federal Government's involvement in the Drug War from a "State's Rights" perspective because he was arguing against Federal powers in terms of their unconstitutionality (which leaves powers not enumerated to the states), but he certainly understands that you cannot delegate rights that you don't have to someone who supposedly represents you.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:31 PM
Where you think the "authority" this group claims comes from? How do you delegate rights to a representative that you don't have?
You're arbitrarily giving special powers to an organization, because you want to use it to express power in ways that you can't as an individual.

Ron Paul may have argued against the Federal Government's involvement in the Drug War from a "State's Rights" perspective because he was arguing against Federal powers in terms of their unconstitutionality (which leaves powers not enumerated to the states), but he certainly understands that you cannot delegate rights that you don't have to someone who supposedly represents you....


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 10:32 PM
...

And where does the "authority" of the Constitution come from?

You're basically making the argument that the Constitution usurps all individual rights and delegates all the power that it doesn't give to the Federal government to the states that comprise it.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:35 PM
And where does the "authority" of the Constitution come from?
"We the People"

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 10:39 PM
"We the People"

"We the People" the collective authoritarian gang entity which can do whatever they want to individuals so long as it's the will of the majority?

Or is that supposed to be a group of individuals each with individual rights?

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:46 PM
"We the People" the collective authoritarian gang entity which can do whatever they want to individuals so long as it's the will of the majority?

Or is that supposed to be a group of individuals each with individual rights?

I think you're misreading this. The 10th Amendment protects States from Federal Government tyranny. That's how I interpret it anyway...I'll admit, I'm no Constitutional lawyer.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 10:51 PM
I think you're misreading this. The 10th Amendment protects States from Federal Government tyranny. That's how I interpret it anyway...I'll admit, I'm no Constitutional lawyer.

Yes, it doesn't protect people from Federal Tyranny by placing some sort of legitimate Tyrannical Authority in the hands of the states that comprise the federation.

Rights come from individuals. Government organizations, whether Federal or the States that comprise it derive their powers from the rights of the individuals that are supposed to represent and protect, and none have the authority to exercise rights that the individuals that comprise it don't have to exercise against each other and can't delegate to it to do so.

You can't delegate the State of California the authority to lock up someone for possessing or trading an 'undesirable' substance in the same way you can't delegate to the State of California the authority to murder 'undesirable' humans. Individuals have rights, the purpose of governmental institutions is to protect those rights.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 10:56 PM
Yes, it doesn't protect Federal Tyranny by placing Tyranny in the hands of the States that comprise it, is what I'm saying.

But you aren't locked in to succumbing to that tyranny. If you don't like the laws in any one state, you can always move (and still be protected by the U.S. Constitution). I guess you'd be SOL if all 50 states prohibited a certain thing though.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 11:05 PM
But you aren't locked in to succumbing to that tyranny. If you don't like the laws in any one state, you can always move (and still be protected by the U.S. Constitution). I guess you'd be SOL if all 50 states prohibited a certain thing though.

The point is that there is no legitimate power for that Tyranny in the first place. It's gained arbitrarily.

If you do not have the right to point a gun to demand your neighbor to stop drinking Caffeinated coffee in their home, then you can't delegate authority to your representative to do the same thing through the government.

You're giving a group special privileges to use violence against innocent people who have committed no harm to anyone.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2013, 11:16 PM
The point is that there is no legitimate power for that Tyranny in the first place. It's gained arbitrarily.

If you do not have the right to point a gun to demand your neighbor to stop drinking Caffeinated coffee in their home, then you can't delegate authority to your representative to do the same thing through the government.

You're giving a group special privileges to use violence against innocent people who have committed no harm to anyone.
No, the power is not gained arbitrarily. I don't know how things are in your state, but in mine we have elections where we vote on issues.

noneedtoaggress
02-22-2013, 11:21 PM
Can you vote on whether you want to kill all the Jews in your state?

Would that be legitimate? Why or why not?

What if your State Constitution expressly stated that Jews had no rights within that territory because a majority agreed to put it there?

Would that make it legitimate?

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-22-2013, 11:45 PM
she says libertarians are "pussies" who want to suck up to liberals by legalizing pot

He's just pissed that he wasn't born with one :D

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 01:36 AM
Wow...that is one cracked-up cunt.

Trannies can be cunts, too

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 01:42 AM
One more thing. I take a small comfort tonight in reminding myself and all of you that we are the future. Ours is the generation that will grow to take the reins of government in the coming decades. And there will be many more Andy Coulters in the lion's den, just as we saw in this vid. And much lulz will be had by all.

Well, that is if we can manage to make it through the next ten years or so, intact.

RickyJ
02-23-2013, 01:45 AM
One more thing. I take a small comfort tonight in reminding myself and all of you that we are the future. Ours is the generation that will grow to take the reins of government in the coming decades. And there will be many more Andy Coulters in the lion's den, just as we saw in this vid. And much lulz will be had by all.

Well, that is if we can manage to make it through the next ten years or so, intact.

The previous generation said much the same, and look where we are now. Change will not come about as long as most people are comfortable, not rich, but in not in need either.

Griffith
02-23-2013, 02:09 AM
I agree with her about how Liberals want to destroy the family. Spot on.

CPUd
02-23-2013, 02:25 AM
http://i.imgur.com/F1Fm7QX.jpg

NorfolkPCSolutions
02-23-2013, 02:39 AM
The previous generation said much the same, and look where we are now. Change will not come about as long as most people are comfortable, not rich, but in not in need either.

Speaking as a man with two jobs, no money, and very little free time, I know that I represent a growing portion of Americans. Where I live, most of the people who are comfortable, not rich, but not in need either, are in their 50s and above. Folks like myself, in their 20s and 30s, however, haven't had the benefit of time to amass savings, investments, or anything that makes a person "comfortable," as you define it. And we aren't comfortable, no, not at all. And we know it's likely going to get worse before it gets better.

Yours is a good point, and well taken; however, despite the fact that events external to the young family - like mine - such as the economy and the growing police state, are not conditions unique to this age, but the boldness with which our liberties are being stripped away, the utter shambles that is our economy and job market due to factors such as Obamacare, the collapse of the housing market - we're seeing the same film as the previous generation, but we're getting it in Hi-Def with 7.1 surround sound, if you know what I mean.

No one I know remembers things being as bad as they are now, even under Carter.

cajuncocoa
02-23-2013, 07:43 AM
Can you vote on whether you want to kill all the Jews in your state?

Would that be legitimate? Why or why not?

What if your State Constitution expressly stated that Jews had no rights within that territory because a majority agreed to put it there?

Would that make it legitimate?

Maybe if I had a degree in Constitutional law I could sort all of this out for you. Whether you agree, or whether or not you like it, my opinion is that the 10th Amendment gives states the power to decide the legality of drugs, abortion, etc. That's how the text of the 10th Amendment reads to me....whether it's right or wrong, I'll leave that to the better educated people on this board to argue.

anaconda
02-23-2013, 05:07 PM
What if your State Constitution expressly stated that Jews had no rights within that territory because a majority agreed to put it there?

Would that make it legitimate?

It instantly becomes subject to the powerful "free market" competition from the other 49 states and likely completely non-viable. And, in this case, the federal constitution.

AuH20
02-23-2013, 05:53 PM
One more thing. I take a small comfort tonight in reminding myself and all of you that we are the future. Ours is the generation that will grow to take the reins of government in the coming decades. And there will be many more Andy Coulters in the lion's den, just as we saw in this vid. And much lulz will be had by all.

Well, that is if we can manage to make it through the next ten years or so, intact.

Unfortunately, many of the millenials are more delusional than the baby boomers.

kcchiefs6465
02-23-2013, 05:55 PM
Unfortunately, many of the millenials are more delusional than the baby boomers.
It's a lot easier to see now. [I believe] They aren't exactly hiding shit. [hell they usually have press conferences on it] Not to mention the internet has made information infinitely more available.

satchelmcqueen
02-23-2013, 06:08 PM
coulter looked kinda hot there

jct74
02-24-2013, 03:09 PM
does anyone have a link to the whole show? ? haven't time right now to go through all these pages. . .

I don't see the whole show uploaded on youtube but it repeats on Fox News tonight at 10 ET.
http://www.foxnews.com/fnctv/printable_schedule.html?day=5

kcchiefs6465
02-24-2013, 03:32 PM
coulter looked kinda hot there
My God she did.

She has the appeal of a meat grinder.

If the meat grinder yelled stupid shit at you all day long.

noneedtoaggress
02-24-2013, 07:31 PM
Maybe if I had a degree in Constitutional law I could sort all of this out for you. Whether you agree, or whether or not you like it, my opinion is that the 10th Amendment gives states the power to decide the legality of drugs, abortion, etc. That's how the text of the 10th Amendment reads to me....whether it's right or wrong, I'll leave that to the better educated people on this board to argue.

You can have whatever opinion you want, just realize that you're supporting mob rule and arbitrarily giving special power to groups that somehow allows them to infringe upon the rights of individuals simply because they are a big group.

What's the difference between a majority writing on a piece of paper that "within this territory X race has no rights", and a mob running around with pitchforks or a gang shooting at people for driving down the wrong street in their hood? Does it make a difference if the majority of the people within some territory want to take away the rights of someone else?

And you can't compare drugs to abortion. Drugs are inanimate substances and are not, nor ever will become, anything sentient much less a human being with individual rights. Drugs are no different from any other physical property. You have plenty of them in your medicine cabinet and kitchen right now.

Abortion gets tricky because it involves a living organism being supported by the body of another organism, both of which either are, or are at the very least have the potential to be, human with all the rights that entails. If we had the technology for all organisms to survive without the mother as a host body, clearly killing the organism would be immoral. Your stance basically supports people who would still want to kill this organism regardless of what stage it's in (even fully human, if they are considered "undesirable" by a majority), because you're supporting ignoring individual's rights over the "will of the collective".

You can't take away people's rights by writing it on a piece of paper and pretending it applies to everyone in your "hood", no matter if you're in a majority or not. If you do, then you're simply acting like a gang except you're attempting give a pretense of legitimacy by trying to make your criminal actions "legal". It's no different from setting up a kangaroo court to convict someone.

Believe what you want, but at least think about what it is you're really supporting, because when you support a platform for tyranny with your principles, it's inevitably going to be used against you rather than for you.

noneedtoaggress
02-24-2013, 07:35 PM
It instantly becomes subject to the powerful "free market" competition from the other 49 states and likely completely non-viable. And, in this case, the federal constitution.

It may not survive, but that's not what I asked.

Can you take away people's rights by getting a mob together and writing it on a piece of paper, claiming it's legal? Is that legitimate?

Is it legitimate to get a majority to declare that they can infringe on the rights of a minority within a territory they happens to occupy and claim control over? How is that any different than mob rule? How is that not tyranny of the majority, and how is that legitimate?

jct74
02-24-2013, 10:53 PM
here is the entire show in order



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vxretuQDBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_k0sMOpTQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIHZX4DHRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88cCiZkx8iw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3KUqLb9LY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xgUqBN9GA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vxretuQDBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_k0sMOpTQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIHZX4DHRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88cCiZkx8iw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3KUqLb9LY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xgUqBN9GA

Brett85
02-24-2013, 10:58 PM
John Bolton just makes me want to throw up whenever I listen to him.

COpatriot
02-25-2013, 01:05 AM
Wow. Even though I don't like him I thought Bolton defended his position pretty well up until the very end of that video which just left me speechless.

QuickZ06
02-25-2013, 01:32 AM
Dennis Kucinich, "social security is rock solid"!

Thanks for the lulz.

CPUd
02-20-2017, 06:09 PM
833775443748802567
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/833775443748802567

833795192687828993
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/833795192687828993